

( 


ft 




































































. 












































































































































































































. 




































. . 
























































































































. 
























































































































AUTOMATIC LIFE BOAT LAUNCHING APPARATUS FOR THE BETTER 

PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. ^ ^ 

Committee on the Merchant AIarine and Fisheries, / 

Thursday , April H, 1910. 

The committee this day met, Hon. William S. Greene (chairman) 
presiding. 

The Chairman. This meeting was called for the purpose of holding 
a hearing on the bill IT. R. 21836. 

Mr. Goulden. Air. Chairman, you will recall that at the last meet¬ 
ing we agreed to give fifteen minutes to the Maritime Exchange of 
New York City in reference to the Spight bill. I wrote and suggested 
that if they would send down a resolution it would answer the same 
purpose and that it would appear in the record. This letter is 
addressed to myself: 

Please accept thanks for your kind statement that you would give us a hearing 
before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to-morrow. I beg to hand 
you herewith resolution which was unanimously adopted by our board of directors 
at a regular monthly meeting held this day, copy of which has been forwarded to the 
chairman of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

I presume you have that, Air. Chairman. 

In view of the adoption of this resolution, our committee on American steamship 
affairs has decided not to appear at the hearing to-morrow. 

Very respectfully, 

C. R. Norman, President. 

The resolution is dated April 13, 1910: 

Resolution unanimously adopted at a regular monthly meeting of the hoard of directors 
of the Maritime Association of the port of New York held this day. 


Resolved , That the Maritime Association of the Port of New York is opposed to 
the passage of H. R. bill No. 11193, knowing that American vessels are properly 
manned and are not unskillfully manned. 

That is all I have to say about that matter. I would like to have 
that appear in the hearings, if they are not closed. 

Air. Spight. That does not call for any further hearing ? 

Air. Goulden. No, sir. 

The bill H. R. 21836, introduced by myself, I will ask to have a 
copy of that bill inserted in the hearing in order to save time. 

(The bill referred to by Air. Goulden follows:) 


A BILL To amend section forty-four hundred and eighty-eight, Revised Statutes, for the greater safety 
and protection of passengers on steam vessels of the United States. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That section forty-four hundred and eighty-eight shall be 
amended by inserting, after the word “disaster,” in line five, the words “and every 
vessel subject to the provisions of this title shall have all lifeboats required by law 

25486—10-1* 




2 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


E rovided with suitable boat-launching apparatus, so arranged as to allow the boat to 
e loaded while inboard, and to positively prevent the possibility of either end of the 
boat carrying away or of being lowered at a greater or less speed than the other end, 
and to permit of the boat being run out and lowered to the water, clear of the vessel’s 
side, within two minutes from the time the clearing away of the boats is begun, such 
boat-launching apparatus, including falls, to be fireproof throughout,” so that section 
forty-four hundred and eighty-eight shall read as follows: 

“Section 4488. Every steamer navigating the ocean or any lake, bay, or sound of 
the United States shall be provided with such numbers of lifeboats, floats, rafts, life- 
preservers, line-carrying projectiles and the means of propelling them, and drags as 
will best secure the safety of all persons on board such vessel in case of disaster; and 
every vessel subject to the provisions of this title shall have the lifeboats required by 
law provided with suitable boat-launching apparatus, so arranged as to allow the boat 
to be loaded while inboard, and to positively prevent the possibility of either end of 
the boat carrying away or of being lowered at a greater or less speed than the other end, 
and to permit of the boat being run out and lowered to the water, clear of the vessel’s 
side, within two minutes from the time the clearing away of the boats is begun, such 
boat-launching apparatus, including falls, to be fireproof throughout, and every sea¬ 
going vessel carrying passengers, and every such vessel navigating any of the northern 
or northwestern lakes, shall have the lifeboats required by law provided with suitable 
boat-disengaging apparatus, so arranged as to allow such boats to be safely launched 
while such vessels are under speed or otherwise, and so as to allow such disengaging 
apparatus to be operated by one person, disengaging both ends of the boat simultane¬ 
ously from the tackles by which it may be lowered to the water. And the board of 
supervising inspectors shall fix and determine, by their rules and regulations, the 
character of lifeboats, floats, rafts, life-preservers, line-carrying projectiles and the 
means of propelling them, and drags that shall be used on such vessels, and also the 
character and capacity of pumps or other appliances for freeing the steamer from water 
in case of heavy leakage, the capacity of such pumps or appliances being suited to the 
navigation in which the steamer is employed. Every vessel subject to the provisions 
of this title shall, while in operation, carry one life-preserver for each and every person 
allowed to be carried on said vessel by the certificate of inspection, including each 
member of the crew: Provided , however , That upon such vessels and under such con¬ 
ditions as are specified in section forty-four hundred and eighty-two floats may be 
substituted for life-preservers. Any person who willfully and knowingly manufac¬ 
tures or sells, or offers for sale, or has in his possession with intent to sell, life-preservers 
containing metal or other nonbuoyant material for the purpose of increasing the weight 
thereof, or more metal or other such material than is reasonably necessary for the con¬ 
struction thereof, or who shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess with intent 
to sell any other articles commonly used for preservation of life or the prevention of 
fire on board vessels subject to the provisions of this title, which articles shall be so 
defective as to be inefficient to accomplish the purposes for which they are respectively 
intended and designed, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than two thousand 
dollars, and may, in addition thereto, in the discretion of the court, be imprisoned not 
exceeding five years.” 

Sec. 2. That this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. 

Mr. Goulden. While the object of this legislation is primarily for 
the benefit of the public interests, it will not mean putting any great 
burden on steamship owners, as the demand which wdll spring up as 
a result of this legislation will mean reasonable prices on the latest 
approved boat-launching appliances made possible through the low 
cost of production which will be insured by the demand being large 
enough to permit of this. In the absence of such legislation the 
cost of production and selling of life-saving equipment must necessa¬ 
rily be high, owing to the demand being only spasmodic and coming 
only from those shipowners who recognise the moral obligations 
they are under to safeguard the lives of their passengers and crews. 
Officers of companies alive to their interests and to that of the 
traveling public, will gladly equip their vessels. 

Also there will be large savings to the steamship owners by reason 
of the cutting out of the heavy expense for large quantities of manila 
rope of the very best quality, which has to be renewed at least once 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


3 


in every year with the old-style davits. Fireproof wire rope will 
last as long as the steamboats themselves with ordinary care. 

There are various modern boat-launching appliances, I am informed 
which will meet the requirements of the bill H. R. 21836. I have 
examined into this matter since introducing this bill; I knew some¬ 
thing about it previous to that, hut not enough, hut since then I have 
made considerable investigation and I find there are several appli¬ 
ances that could be used if this bill became a law. They will meet the 
requirements, and there are others that will meet the requirements 
with slight alterations in construction. First, I found the Welin. Of 
course you will understand that these are all patented contrivances, 
but I think they are of very great value indeed to the commercial 
interests of the country. The Welin has been approved by the board 
of supervising inspectors of the United States. This is a practical 
device, there being several thousand in use at the present. The 
Schrtiidt has been officially approved by the British and other foreign 
governments and is also in practical use. The Martin has been ap¬ 
proved of by the board of supervising inspectors of the United States 
and represents the latest improvements in boat-launching apparatus, 
so far as my knowledge goes. I have seen them operate and there¬ 
for I know that they would be a ‘great improvement over the present 
system of launching boats. There are many others which are not so 
well known, but which will doubtless be brought forward and devel¬ 
oped, as they merely await encouragement from the steamship com- 

E anies, which will result from the enactment of legislation as proposed 
y this bill. The United States Government has made a thorough 
test of at least the Welin and the Martin, and they have approved of 
them, have found them to be both excellent devices. 

I have noted some objections from the letters I have received and 
others, and I think I will ask the committee to bear with me patiently 
for a moment. 

Objection No. 1 has been called to my attention. 

It is not practicable, as it holds the officers of the ship to a hard 
and fast rule, so that in cases of emergency they have no discretion 
in the matter of handling their lifeboats. 

This objection has no foundation in fact, as there are several 
modern boat-launching devices which permit of more room for the 
exercise of reasonable discretion than with the old style davit, for 
the following reasons: 

First. With the old style of davit there is little or no room for the 
exercise of discretion in the launching of the boats, it being impera¬ 
tive to load the passengers over the rail with all the attendant risk 
of accident, especially to women and children, while with the modern 
boat-launching apparatus the passengers may, at the discretion of 
the officers, be loaded into the boats right on the decks. In other 
words, before the boat is started to be lowered the passengers can be 
put in, and the device I saw work lowered it and the boat entered 
the water with both ends exactly parallel. 

Second. With the old type of davit still used on vessels the entire 
boat’s crew is required to attend to the running out and lowering of 
the boat, while there are modern devices where one man only is 
required for this, the rest of the crew being able to give their atten¬ 
tion to the disposition of the passengers and to quelling panic and 
excitement among the passengers. 


4 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Objection No. 2, which has come to my notice, is that this amend¬ 
ment from our point of view is impossible of attainment. 

This can hardly be looked upon as a serious objection, as there 
are several devices which make it quite possible to carry out the 
requirements of the proposed law; and again, the board of inspectors 
and the United States officials would not have approved of any 
device that was not practicable and could not be attained. 

Objection No. 3. We know of no machine that would safely lift 
a boat and swing it out after being loaded. 

It has been proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervising 
Inspectors that there are modern devices which will accomplish this 
work successfully. 

Objection No. 4. It would be dangerous to load a boat before 
lowering. 

That is another objection that was made. The proposed amend¬ 
ment does not make it imperative to load the boats from the deck, 
but simply calls for a device that will make it possible, at the dis¬ 
cretion of the officers, to load before running out. There are several 
modern davits with which the boats may be loaded, either on the 
deck, over the rail, or in the water, the best and safest method 
being left entirely to the discretion of the officer in charge, but it 
certainly is feasible and safe. 

Objection No. 5. There are times when we want to lower a life¬ 
boat, one end a little faster than the other, just before striking the 
water, and this amendment would prohibit that.” 

With the present hand-lowering type of davit it is absolutely 
impossible to maintain perfect control of the lowering of the boat, as 
has been amply proved in the past by the number of fatalities that 
have been caused by the lifeboat getting out of control of the men on 
deck, while with the improved davits the boat is under perfect con¬ 
trol from the beginning of the launching operation to the end, and is 
done quickly. 

Objection No. 6. “Lifeboats should not strike the water squarely; 
the stern should take the water first.” 

This is merely a matter of arrangement of the falls, which can be 
arranged so as to give the boat the necessary cant and still prevent 
either end of the boat getting out of control. 

Objection No. 7. Why should falls on lifeboats be fireproof? 

The answer to this objection is obvious, and should be readily appre¬ 
ciated in view of the fearful disaster on the General Slocum , which 
occurred in my district. 

Objection No. 8. In cases of disaster lifeboat falls sometimes have 
to be cut, and in order to be fireproof they must be of wire, in which 
case they could not be cut. 

The new device provides for wire rope instead of manila rope, and 
therefore it would be impossible to cut the rope. 

The only possible reason there could be for cutting the falls of a 
lifeboat would be because the manila rope falls were frozen or swollen 
in the sheaves, or for other reasons were unworkable. The wire cable 
always runs free, and the boat can be lowered as fast or as slowly as 
may be considered advisable in the discretion of the officer in charge. 

As to the suggestion that any changes in the laws be left to the 
Board of Supervising Inspectors,* surely this board should not have the 
power of enacting laws of the United States, but their duties are to 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 5 

see that the requirements of the laws are observed. It is the duty of 
Congress to legislate. This committee is charged with the duty of 
initiating laws to safeguard human life. 

Now, that seems to answer the various objections so far as I have 
received them. Of course, there is another objection, that in the case 
of a patented device the owners of the vessels would be at the mercy 
of the men owning the patented device. As I stated; there are three 
of these devices. 

Mr. Spigiit. I have not read the bill carefully. Do I understand 
that the only purpose is to regulate the character of lifeboats and the 
manner of lowering them—handling them? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir. That is where there is the great danger. 
Now, in the case of the General Slocum , which happened, as you all 
must know right in my district, where more than a thousand lives 
were lost, it was due largely to the fact that in the excitement, having 
a bad crew, it was impossible to lower the boats. At first, when the 
fire began to get headway, most of the crew took to the water them¬ 
selves, “saving their own bacon.” An effort was made to lower the 
boats, but it was an absolute failure. The whole thing was very 
badly managed on account of the inefficiency of the crew, but if they 
had had the apparatus provided for in this bill there would have been 
less than half of the number of lives lost, because one man could have 
lowered the boats. It would not have required any special skill. 

Mr. Fairchild. Have you seen a demonstration of this apparatus? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir; because I wanted to know something 
about it, and I think the chairman of this committee is also familiar 
with this matter, and perhaps he will make a statement later on in 
order that it may go into the record. I firmly believe something of 
this kind ought to be adopted, and the only objection which can be 
made to it at all, that looks to me as if it might be regarded as tenable, 
is the fact that they are patented devices, but all good things are 
patented these days. 

Mr. Spigiit. Will this make it more expensive? 

Mr. Goulden. Not more expensive than equipping a boat with 
the old-fashioned davits and the manila rope, and the replacing of 
those ropes. I am informed those ropes must be replaced about 
once a year. They are exposed to the weather, and at the end of a 
year the} 7 are no longer fit to be used. There are some seamen here, 
and I would like to ask Captain Furuseth whether the ropes would 
last longer than a year, if exposed to the elements. 

Mr. Furuseth. No, sir. 

Mr. Goulden. Mr. Furuseth is a practical seaman, and he answers 
that they would not. When you take into consideration the fact that 
you have to replace the manila ropes by which the boats are lowered, 
and take into consideration all the other matters, this is really 
cheaper than that—any one of these devices—and, as I say, there are 
three that I know of and many more are being perfected. It seems 
to me that the competition alone would prevent any monopoly in 
that direction. 

Mr. Wilson. This bill applies to the boats on the Great Lakes and 
the oceans ? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir; all boats. It is intended to apply to 
everything. Human life is just as valuable and precious on the 
Great Lakes as on the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean. 


6 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Spight. There is no trust controlling the prices ? 

Mr. Goulden. No, sir. I submit the bill for the consideration of 
this committee and trust that it may receive favorable consideration. 

Mr. Duff. Do I understand this bill proposes that all vessels which 
are already equipped with apparatus that has heretofore been ap¬ 
proved by .the local inspectors is to be thrown away and replaced with 
this new apparatus, or is this bill intended only to apply to new 
construction or to apparatus which has been condemned and is being 
replaced on the old vessels ? 

Mr. Goulden. I should say that it would apply to all; that is the 
intention. 

Mr. Duff. If you make it apply to all then the steamship owners 
must throw away all the present apparatus- 

Mr. Goulden. And put on new and better apparatus. 

Mr. Duff. And put on new devices ? 

Mr. Goulden. That is my intention. 

Mr. Spight. Would it not require persons specially skilled in 
handling the lifeboats ? 

Mr. Goulden. From the experiments I have seen, I do not think so. 

Mr. Spight. Could the ordinary deck hand handle it ? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir. The device I saw was in the shape of a 
crank which controlled both ends of the wire rope, and you simply 
took the handle and wound it up or let it down. It was one of the 
simplest things I have ever seen. 

Mr. Wilson. Are they expensive? 

Mr. Goulden. If you take into consideration the wire rope and 
all the other machinery, which is very simple, I should say that it 
would be more expensive than the old system, but not in the end, 
because this wire rope will last as long as the vessel does. 

Mr. Fairchild. If this apparatus is better for the preservation of 
life and property, the steamship owners themselves would naturally 
be inclined to adopt it ? 

Mr. Goulden. I think there is no doubt about that. I think the 
steamship owners will when they understand it. What they fear is 
that, it being a patented device, they may be subject to onerous de¬ 
mands of the owners. 

Mr. Henry. If the apparatus is satisfactory I should suppose that 
the vessel owners themselves would adopt it. It seems to me that it 
would be a little unreasonable to ask them to put aside apparatus 
which will be good for months to come; and would this not be a club 
to compel the vessel owners to pay possibly an unreasonable price ? 

Mr. Goulden. I think we might safeguard that in the bill when 
we come to consider it section by section. If it is going to save human 
life we must not take into consideration whether it is going to cost 
much or little. 

Mr. Henry. We have gone through all the centuries in this way. 

Mr. Goulden. And lost a good many lives. We could make it 
take effect in six months or a year; I would not object to that. 

Mr. Humphrey. Can you tell approximately what it would cost to 
equip an ordinary steamer with this device ? 

Mr. Goulden. I regret to say that I can not. I think Mr. Greene 
might be able to give the information. 

The Chairman. I have here a number of petitions signed by 
probably 2,500 petitioners from the section in which the General 



PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


7 


Slocum was burned, petitioning for the adoption of this bill. I also 
have a petition from Seabright, N. J., referred to the committee by 
Hon. Benjamin F. Howell, a Member of Congress from New Jersey, 
and also a letter sent to him by some parties, with a vast number of 
signatures. Perhaps I had better read the form of this petition: 

W e , the undersigned citizens of Rumson and Oceanic, county of Monmouth, State 
of New Jersey, are advised that there are pending before your committee the report 
of President Roosevelt’s commission regarding the preservation of human life at sea, 
and bill No. 21836, introduced by Congressman Goulden, who represents the district 
in New York City which suffered from the Slocum disaster, entitled “A bill to amend 
section 4488, Revised Statutes, for the greater safety and protection of passengers on 
steam vessels of the United States,” and upon which action should be taken before 
the expiration of this Congress. 

Nearly six years have passed since the burning of the General Slocum, and not one 
single step has been taken by the National Government for the better protection of 
our citizen passengers at sea. 

The report of the Roosevelt commission and Congressman Goulden’s bill No. 21836, 
which, we understand, is based upon same, is before the House of Representatives 
for action. We therefore urge that you report Congressman Goulden’s bill, No. 21836, 
and urge the immediate enactment of this measure into law in accordance with the 
express wish of President Roosevelt and the unanimous report of his commission. 

I will state in reference to that part of the petition where it says 
that for six years there has not been anything done by the National 
Government that there has been a bill introduced in Congress and 
passed which provides for better protection for human life at sea. 

Mr. Humphrey. There have been several measures. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; several bills. 

There has been a large sentiment among a great many people in 
regard to this bill. As I understand the bill, and I have looked into 
it somewhat carefully, it has been called to my attention, it does not 
contemplate the purchase of new lifeboats; it is simply a device for 
lowering the boats to better advantage, with less trouble and con¬ 
fusion, and it seems practicable. The supervising inspectors of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor about a year ago had a test of 
the apparatus. There is a complete apparatus at one of the docks 
here in the city of Washington. It was fully tested by the super¬ 
vising inspectors and every one of them approved of the device that 
was exhibited about one year ago. It is believed by all those who 
have looked into the matter that it is necessary to make some better 

E rovision than was made in the early days for the lowering of the 
oats on passenger steamers. The only way I look at it is this, if 
there is something, and no doubt there is, because the board of super¬ 
vising inspectors would not have approved of the different devices 
that have been brought to their attention—there has been a division 
of opinion, but there has been no difference of opinion—the passengers 
should have the benefit of it. The only requirement will be that the 
various lines that carry passengers have a suitable device which shall 
better protect human life. If this device is not the proper thing—the 
supervising inspectors who have considered it, without regard to 
whose device it might be, have reached the conclusion that it was 
suitable and available—the change can be made at small expense. 

Some say that it is going to cost the steamship companies- 

Mr. Goulden. Can you tell us about the cost ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. 

Mr. Goulden. I have looked it up a little and I would like to say 
in answer to Mr. Humphrey’s question that the cost would be about 
$300. 



8 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Wilson. For each vessel? 

Mr. Goulden. Each lifeboat. The old system costs $250 and the 
new system $300. 

Mr. Wilson. That includes the boat itself? 

Mr. Goulden. No, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. Just the appliance ? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir; the old boat could be used. 

Mr. Humphrey. How many lifeboats are there on a vessel of 6,000 
tons ? 

Mr. Goulden. About 8 lifeboats. Is that about right, Captain 
Furuseth ? 

Mr. Furuseth. It depends entirely upon the number of passengers 
carried. The law provides, I think/that a boat shall carry lifeboats 
for 75 per cent of the passengers. 

Mr. Goulden. I should say that about 8 lifeboats would cover it. 

Mr. Duff. Does the $300 include the lowering gear and the new 
•davits ? 

Mr. Goulden. Everything complete. 

Mr. Humphrey. That would be about $2,500 for an ordinary 
vessel ? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir; for a 6,000-ton vessel. 

Mr. Wilson. I asked a man who came to see me about it, and he 
told me that a boat could be equipped for about $75. 

Mr. Goulden. I think I am putting it [high, judging from some 
things I have been told. 

The Chairman. The cost would undoubtedly be reduced by com¬ 
petition. There are several devices. 

Mr. Henry. Competition for a patented article ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. The bill does not designate any special 
device. There are 3 or 4 patented devices that will answer the 
provisions of this bill. 

Mr. Henry. You think there will be competition? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goulden. I would not be here asking for the passage of this 
bill if there was not going to be competition. I wish you would tell 
Mr. Humphrey about lowering the passengers while the boats are in 
the davits. 

Mr. Humphrey. Is not that the way they do it now? 

Mr. Goulden. But it is very risky. 

The Chairman. I do not think they do that to any great extent 
now. 

Mr. Humphrey. I have seen them put the passengers in before 
lowering the boat. 

The Chairman. There is a provision here, but it is not compulsory. 

Mr. Humphrey. I have frequently seen it done in the drills. 

Mr. Hardy. That would be when everything was still; but how 
would it be when there was a storm ? 

Mr. Humphrey. I have never seen them lower boats under those 
•circumstances. 

The Chairman. Neither have I. With this apparatus the boat can 
be lowered regularly, and there is no danger of it smashing against 
the boat, as it is held away from the boat. It can be lowered inside 
of a few seconds from the deck of the boat. 

Mr. Fairchild. When do you say this act should be enforced? 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 9 

Mr. Goulden. I suggested that that could be changed; that is the 
usual form. 

Mr. Fairchild. How much time would you give them ? 

Mr. Goulden. Six months. 

Mr. Fairchild. You do not provide for that in the act. 

Mr. Goulden. No, sir; but that could be amended. 

Mr. Alexander. Why not make it prospective as they renew the 
apparatus ? I do not like the monopoly feature of this bill. 

The Chairman. They are compelled to renew the ropes which they 
now use, the manila ropes, once a year, as I understand, replacing the 
manila rope with a wire rope. This is something that would be 
permanent. 

Mr. Swasey. It will be necessary to throw away all the present 
apparatus and renew it. 

The Chairman. The only way I look at that would be this: The 
saving of one human life would be worth the change, and if it saves 
10 human lives, so much the better, and if it saves 50 human lives, 
so much the better. I think it is a question of the preservation of 
human life and not expense. I think the steamers generally through¬ 
out this country have been in the habit—I know that this is true of 
the Fall River Line, right at my home, of adopting every device 
which they have found safeguarded human life. They go out at 
night with 2,000 passengers. They have had very few accidents. 
They sometimes have an accident in Long Island Sound, and some¬ 
times a life is lost. It is wise to preserve human life if possible, and 
it seems to me the question of expense, unless it is a very large item, 
ought not to be taken into consideration. I think in time this will 
prove to be not an expensive matter but a wise provision. You can 
can see something of the sentiment of the people who witnessed the 
Slocum disaster, and they ask that if we can not adopt all the features 
of the Roosevelt commission bill, we enact this law. There are a 
great many objections to the commission bill, and even some of the 
officers on the commission are opposed to some features of it. That 
would be a pretty expensive operation, and the steamship companies 
would find that there would be a great deal larger expense than any 
suggested here. 

Mr. Humphrey. My objection is not the expense, but the question 
in my mind is that there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that 
this arrangement is going to be a very great improvement over the 
other. You take the General Slocum, there is no evidence, so far as I 
know, to show that if the General Slocum, had been' equipped with 
this arrangement it would have saved a single human life. The dis¬ 
aster to the Slocum was due to the fact that the crew was inefficient 
and there was no discipline. In addition to that it was not equipped 
as required now. 

Mr. Goulden. It was very poorly equipped. Anybody can lower 
a boat with this device. I have seen it work. You or I could do it. 
On that occasion those who remained on board the Slocum could have 
lowered the boats. 

Mr. Fairchild. Is it possible to lower the boats other than properly ? 

Mr. Goulden. No, sir; you can not do that. 

Mr. Alexander. It must require some skill because if you lowered’ 
the boat on a plane in a rolling sea you would have the same trouble. 


10 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Goulden. The wires regulate that. You could wait for a 
moment until the wave disappeared and then lower the boat. 

Mr. Alexander. But it takes judgment and discretion. 

Mr. Humphrey. I will make this suggestion, I would like to have 
more information, have somebody who is familiar with this apparatus 
come here and demonstrate it. 

Mr. Goulden. I think Mr. Greene can arrange to have some one 
come here. 

The Chairman. The apparatus can be seen at the dock here in 
Washington by anybody who so desires. 

Mr. Goulden. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you to send this 
bill, if you have not already done so, to the Supervising Inspector- 
General and ask him to be present at the next meeting and I would 
also like to ask that those who favor the bill be heard next Thursday. 
I have a letter here from the head of the managing department of the 
Central Railroad of New Jersey in which he asks for a hearing. I 
also have a letter from the president of an engine and power com¬ 
pany, in my district, which I think I will read: 

Gas Engine and Power Co., and Charles L. Seabury & Co., 

Morris Heights , New York City , April 9, 1910. 

Hon. J. A. Goulden, 

House of Representatives , Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Goulden: Referring to your letter of April 8, as regards bill H. R. 
21836: 

I am thoroughly in sympathy with any measure that adds to safety of those who 
go down to the sea in ships, and wonder if the present equipment for the launching 
of lifeboats, when properly cared for, has not generally proved efficient for the purpose, 
and if this measure is necessary. 

The reading of this bill suggests to my mind the possibility of some new devise 
which will accomplish the handling of a boat in the manner and in the specific time 
therein designated. 

Now, if this is a patented device, and so hedged in by conditions that would make 
its use imperative, as against all other devices of similar character now in use, I should 
conrider it class legislation in a most insiduous form, and so, no matter what the merit, 
object to it on that ground. 

Naturally I am curious to know if you have investigated the subject from this 
standpoint. 

Very cordially, yours, Jno. J. Amory. 

Mr. Amory is one of the officers of the National Association of 
Motor Boat Owners. 

Mr. Fairchild. Do you know whether this apparatus lias ever 
been tested in a rough sea ? 

Mr. Goulden. I do not know. 

Mr. Fairchild. That would be worth knowing? 

Mr. Goulden. Yes, sir. The board of supervising inspectors made 
a thorough test. 

The Chairman. Every one of them ? 

I have here a number of letters w r hich came during my absence of 
five da} r s from Washington. One from Brooklyn, N. Y.,; one from 
Westchester, N. Y.; one from the Young Men’s Christian Association, 
the State College of Pennsylvania, the Norwegian Lutheran Church, 
Boston; one from the Episcopal Church at Freeport, N. Y.; one from 
the Temple Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, the Memorial Lutheran 
Church, etc.; every one written in different lines, all asking for some¬ 
thing that will preserve human life. 

We will now hear Mr. Beer. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


11 


STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM C. BEER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 
YONKERS, N. Y. 

Mr. Beer. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this honorable com¬ 
mittee, I will tax your patience but a few moments. I represent the 
American Association for the Protection of Human Life at Sea. I 
am directed to petition your honorable body for attention to this 
subject from the standpoint of the association petitioners. It may 
perhaps seem extraordinary that so many of these petitioners should 
be of religious denominations. If you will reflect, gentlemen, a mo¬ 
ment, you will remember that the excursion on which the ill-fated 
Slocum was lost and the frightful holocaust occurred which sent the 
pastor of the church to the insane asylum and which plunged half of 
the homes in Congressman Goulden’s district in mourning was a 
religious excursion. There were women and little children out for a 
pleasant summer holiday. When the boat became a sheet of flame, 
owing to the insufficient protection for human life at sea because of 
the greed and avarice of the boat owners, there were no “ experienced 
deck hands” there to look out for these women and little children. 
Their fares had been paid and were safe in the pockets of the steam¬ 
boat company. There was no representative of the board of directors 
there to take charge of the manila ropes and lower those boats with 
their precious freight into the water, none at all. There were only 
panic-stricken seamen running to and fro, wflth an aged and infirm 
captain. And by the way, the only sacrifice up to the present hour 
is that poor old fellow, Captain Van Schaick, who is driving his little 
ferryboat from new Sing Sing to old Sing Sing, a vicarious atonement 
for the greed of this particular steanlship company. That is why 
the petitions are from religious denominations. That is why, gentle¬ 
men, these petitioners will see to it that this work goes on until some¬ 
thing is done that will enable women and little children on another 
summer holiday to safely take a boat at New York City for pleasure 
and recreation. 

Mr. Spigiit. Are you familiar with the conditions which resulted 
at the Slocum disaster ? 

Mr. Beer. I was not present on the excursion; no, sir. 

Mr. Spight. Are you familiar with the conditions from informa¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. Beer. Congressman Goulden here is the very,best authority 
on that subject. 

Mr. Spight. I understand. 

Mr. Goulden. I was a member of the coroner’s jury which sat six 
days. 

Mr. Spight. Is it true that there were two contributing things, 
first the insufficiency and rotten condition of the lifeboats, and second 
the inefficient handling of the boats by unskilled men ? 

Mr. Beer. I am unable to answer that question. 

Mr. Goulden. The whole management was bad, the fire hose and 
all the equipment of the boat. When water was turned into the hose, 
the hose burst. 

Mr. Humphrey. Have you any facts to show that if the Slocum 
had had this equipment it would in any way have added to the safety 
of the passengers ? 


12 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Beer. Yes, sir. May I crave your indulgence for a moment ? 
My first statement is merely an explanation as to the character of 
these petitions. I have been directed by this association’to call the 
attention of this committee to a device known as the Schmidt device, 
which is in use in Europe in the Baltic, in Swedish waters, in the 
North Sea, and in German waters on 2,200 vessels. The cost of this 
apparatus ranges, according to the place and cost of labor where it is 
built, from $100 to $200 our money. If made in America by American 
workmen, perhaps the cost would run up to $250. 

Mr. Chairman, may I have a couple of minutes to read a description 
of this device ? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Beer (reading): 

The davits work on the quadrantal principle, but, unlike other patents of a similar 
kind, have no teeth, rack, or pawl gearing; but, instead, the quadrant of each davit 
is ingeniously worked on a wire, the ends of which are secured in the two standards 
supporting each davit. The wire is so ingeniously attached to the quadrants that, 
as well as holding them in position, it permits of their working with the greatest free¬ 
dom. For lowering purposes a shaft or spindle is connected to the two inner stand¬ 
ards, having a drum attached to each end, around which the rope or wire is wound, 
one end secured in the drum and the other through a lead block on the head of the 
davit and a detached block, and then secured to the davit, thus suspending the boat 
by two parts of wire only. Two small hand winches are fixed to the before-mentioned 
spindle, the construction of either being such as to enable one man to manipulate 
the whole lowering operation. The second winch was fitted at the suggestion of the 
English and German boards of trade, in order to facilitate the hoisting of very large 
and heavy boats, this latter winch being connected by a clutch when considered nec¬ 
essary. The winches are so designed that a uniform rate in lowering is maintained, 
even should the boat be fully manned, a slight check on the brake being sufficient 
for all controlling purposes. 

Another ingenious contrivance in connection with the davits is the simple manner 
in which the boat is secured after being hoisted up. By the simple raising of a small 
lever placed on the deck under the boat two clutches grip the inner gunwale and with 
the same action secure the keel of the boat fore and aft, thus doing away with the old 
style of chocks and lashings. It is of interest to note that as no tackle fails are used the 
boat is always lowered on an absolutely even keel. 

Now, gentlemen, this is no experiment. This device has been in 
use for years. It has been thoroughly tested out by the London 
Board of Trade, and in this connection I will simply read one more 
paragraph: 

A very important equipment of the modern liner that does not appear to receive the 
attention it should do is that of the boats’ davits. In many ships the same type of 
davits is being used at the present time that was employed years ago. With the 
extensive number of passengers and crew now carried by the large liners too much 
care can not be exercised in the fitting of the most improved type of davits with the 
view of getting the boats lowered in the most expeditious manner in case of disaster. 

One honorable gentleman, I do not remember who, made the criti¬ 
cism, or suggestion, that we have been able to get along without this 
apparatus for many years and that perhaps we could get along with¬ 
out it a while longer. That is true; but, with all due respect, I would 
suggest that the same reasoning would take us back to Roman trireme. 
The ancients could get along on the Mediterranean Sea upon them, 
and there is not any special reason why we could not get along upon 
them now on smooth waters except on account of the expedition and 
comforts of the modern liner. Human progress demands modern, 
up-to-date, scientific methods, the same that we availed of in the 
sinking of the Republic , by the use of the Marconi wireless apparatus. 
We got along withqut the wireless apparatus until it came in, and then 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 13 

we had to have it, and every up-to-date boat is being equipped with 
it now. 

So far as our association is concerned, there is not any idea of bearing 
down hard on any steamship company whatsoever, and I am sure 
that Congressman Goulden can be safely trusted with the management 
of this bill. If it is not suitable in its present form, so that no steam¬ 
ship company will have cause to regret its passage or feel that it is 
being treated in a harsh way, it can be made to apply to new boats, to 
“made-over” boats at the time of overhauling, so that it can go into 
effect just as gradually and just as easily as did the Marconi wireless 
apparatus. 

I thank all you gentlemen for the pleasure of appearing before the 
committee. 

STATEMENT OF MR. A. W. WILLS, TORONTO, CANADA. 

Mr. Wills. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
represent here the Martin lifeboat-launching appliance, one of the 
devices. Our device was officially approved by the board of super¬ 
vising inspectors of the United States m February of last year. We 
would for selfish reasons, which we do not propose to try to have 
considered, prefer to have this bill more stringent. We can say that 
our device goes further than any other device which has been brought 
forward, but we recognize that it is against public policy to create 
a monopoly. 

Mr. Spigiit. Were you present when the inspectors made their 
inspection of the working of this device? 

Mr. Wills. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Spigiit. Under what conditions was this demonstration made, 
in rough sea? 

Mr. Wills. No, sir. We were asked to come down to Washington. 
We are Canadians, and we have not anything like the same merchant 
marine the United States has, and we thought that if we came down 
here we could get an opinion that would be valuable to us. We 
knew nothing whatever regarding the sea conditions such as the 
gentleman speaks about, but we recognized that here was a safety 
device to handle the boats. We were encouraged by the inspectors 
when they saw our model when we first came to Washington, because 
they told us to go ahead; that they believed that we had something 
good. 

Mr. Spight. Was there any actual demonstration? 

Mr. Wills. Yes, sir. We went to work and built one of the de¬ 
vices and we brought it down. We wrote first and asked them if 
we might take it to Baltimore, and they said it would not be con¬ 
venient to take it to Baltimore, but to bring it to Washington and 
to fit it on a dock. 

Mr. Spight. Down on the Potomac River? 

Mr. Wills. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Spight. In smooth water ? 

Mr. Wills. Yes, sir; that is all there was. The device will speak 
for itself in that regard. These gentlemen knowing the conditions 
were smooth would not have approved the device unless they felt 
sure that it was thoroughly practicable in all kinds of water and 
weather conditions. They were all men averaging at least 50 years 


14 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

of age, men of discretion, and men not likely to approve a thing in 
their capacity knowing that they were likely to be criticised for any¬ 
thing they do without full consideration, by the steamship people. 
They have to be very careful. Knowing what our device was, they 
had not only the committee of three which generally inspects appliances 
of different kinds, but they had the whole 10 members of the board 
at our practical demonstration, and they unanimously approved of 
our device. In due course we got an approval, a copy of which was 
sent me by the Department of Commerce and Labor, which reads 
as follows: 

[Report No. 92.] 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Steamboat-Inspection Service, 
Washington, February 16, 1909. 

The committee on life-saving appliances, having had under consideration the 
lifeboat launching and stowing device of Fred E. Martin, of Toronto, Canada, pre¬ 
sented to the board on the 20th day of January, 1909, by the Supervising Inspector- 
General, relating to the above-mentioned device, beg leave to report as follows: At 
2 p. m. February 15, 1909, 10 members of this board witnessed the practical working 
of the device on the wharf of the fire department of this city, to which it was as sub¬ 
stantially secured as it would have been on the deck of a vessel, and was successfully 
operated with a metal lifeboat 18 feet long, to which was attached a single-wire fall 
at each end, and was run out and in, each way, in twenty-six seconds, and lowered 
into the water (about 7 feet), with several persons in her, in two seconds. The boat was 
hoisted and lowered by a hand-winch attachment, as shown by the accompanying 
photograph, exhibiting the whole device. Your committee recommend the device 
in question for adoption by this board. 

John Bermingham, 

C. H. Westcott, 

Ira Harris, 

Committee. 

Then later, under date of April 1, 1909, we received a letter from 
Mr. Uhler, the Supervising Inspector-General, in which he said: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Steamboat-Inspection Service. 

Washington , April 1, 1909. 

Mr. Fred E. Martin, 

209 Carlton street, Toronto, Canada. 

Sir: Referring to your letter of the 10th ultimo, you are hereby informed that 
your lifeboat launching and stowing device, approved by the board of supervising 
inspectors, on February 17, 1909, was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor on March 20, 1909, for use on steam vessels of the merchant marine, under the 
provisions of section 4491, Revised Statutes of the United States. 

Respectfully, 

Geo. Uhler, 

Supervising Inspector-General. 

There was a question asked as to whether this device would not be 
taken up by the steamship people regardless of legislation, and why 
they did not take it up, and in reply I would state the experience has 
been that they do not take them up rapidly enough to permit of them 
being produced at a reasonable price, and that in turn reacts against 
the steamboat owners. The same situation exists, practically, as to 
fire escapes on a building. If it were not compulsory to put a fire 
escape on a building the owners would not install fire escapes like 
they are doing to-day. The owner of a building recognizes that a 
fire escape is a good thing, but he puts it off unless there is compulsory 
legislation. Unless legislation of this kind is enacted it would be 
years before there would be any demand from the steamship 



PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


15 


owners, and that would make it more expensive to do business; and 
the steamship owners would then cry “high prices.” Our device 
would not be very expensive; we could build them for very little 
more than the present davits with any sort of reasonable demand. 

Mr. Humphrey. What would it cost, approximately? 

Mr. W ills. On the very largest size, the size that will handle the 
largest boats on an ocean-going liner, which will carry 50 people, our 
cost is in the neighborhood of $375 complete. The same size old style 
ones they are using now cost over $300 fully equipped. There is very 
little difference in the cost, and I have no doubt that with a reasonable 
demand we can build our device at a most moderate price. 

Mr. Swasey. Where is the device manufactured ? 

Mr. Wills. It would be manufactured in the United States. We 
could not manufacture them in Canada and send them over here on 
account of the duty. 

Mr. Alexander. You have not any factory? 

Mr. Wills. No, sir. The steamboat people have not taken it up. 

Mr. Fairchild. Has your device ever been tested in a rough sea? 

Mr. Wills. No, sir. 

Mr. Fairchild. You do not know what the result would be? 

Mr. Wills. We have gone as far as we could. We came down here. 
We have spent a lot of money developing this device. We could go 
to work in an unlimited way and put the device on boats for tests. 
We have received the official approval of the board and it is fair to 

E resume that the device will work under adverse conditions, or that 
oard would not have approved of our device for use on stormy seas, 
as they have done. The old style will not work in the rough sea. 

Mr. Spight. What is to prevent the boats being dashed against 
the vessel? 

Mr. Wills. With the old device there is nothing to prevent it, 
as the lifeboats can not be handled quickly enough. On our device 
there are the wire ropes on a drum, and the boat can be let down 
slowly or it can be let down very rapidly and absolutely safely. By 
this contrivance [exhibiting] it can be let down without injury to 
the boat or passengers in from two seconds to one minute, and being 
possible to handle the lifeboat so quickly the boat is not dashed 
against the vessel. 

Mr. Kronmiller. Did you not state that you had given it a 
practical test ? 

Mr. Wills. It was given a practical test by the Board of Super¬ 
vising Inspectors. We have never had it on a steamboat. We have 
tried to get opportunities to do so, even at our own expense, but 
the steamboat people do not encourage us. I presume it is not their 
policy to do so. 

Mr. Beer. There are 2,200 of the Schmidt device on steamers and 
over 3,000 of the Welin device in operation now. 

Mr. Fairchild. I would like to ask you how you would lower the 
boat on the weather side in a gale ? 

Mr. Wills. There is this advantage with our machine: With the 
old style, which works simply like that [exhibiting], you could not 
shove it out; the weight is all against you, and the only way is to let 
the boats down on one side and then on the other, after bringing 
the ship around in the wind, but it is not always practicable to even 


16 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


do this. With our device, one man can turn a crank and it is bound 
to go over the side, no matter what angle is against you. 

Mr. Goulden. How long does it take to lower the boat ? 

Mr. Wills. Anywhere from two seconds to a minute. It is under 
control the moment you start to let the lifeboat down, and it goes 
down on an even keel. ' If you want to have the stern go down first 
at a slight cant that can be done, but it comes down evenly. 

Mr. Fairchild. Do you not think your device should be tested 
under all conditions before you expect the committee to recommend 
this bill ? t * 

Air. Wills. 1 would if ours had not been officially approved by the 
Board of Supervising Inspectors for use under all or any sea condi¬ 
tions, and besides, there are two others which you have heard of, the 
Schmidt, spoken of by the gentleman from Yonkers, and the Welin, 
which have been tried out under all conditions for years, and there is 
another one which I saw in New York City; one ol the officers on an 
ocean liner showed it to me. I would like to see some practical en¬ 
couragement. We have gone so far now that we would like to receive 
some encouragement from the committee here. 

Mr. Kronmiller. Can not you get a steamboat company to equip 
one of its vessels ? 

Mr. Wills. Suppose we had one boat equipped, that would not be 
a fair test; there might be parties who would unfairly condemn it for 
interested reasons; or if we had a favorable report from one or two 
steamboat companies it might be said we had unduly influenced them. 
We would have to have dozens of them; besides, the Welin and 
Schmidt have been fully tested. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALLEN LUCKHURST, MARINE SUPERIN¬ 
TENDENT, AMERICAN LINE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 

Mr. Luckhurst. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
represent the American Line of steamships and am the marine super¬ 
intendent of that line and am a master mariner by profession. I just 
want to say that the boats of the American Line, which I specially 
represent, have the possibility of being loaded in the davits with the 
people and then launched, but the great disadvantage of that from a 
practical side is that our boats are carried on a boat deck especially 
built for the boats and the working of the same and also on boat skids. 
This arrangement is so that the crew will have the means of preparing 
the boats and getting them ready for launching, whereas if all the 
people from the different decks, the first class, the second class, and 
the steerage, were all brought upstairs on one deck and put into the 
boats the men could not do their work and the people would not have 
room to get into the boats. In the case of the Republic , as you all 
know, the crew and passengers were transferred without the loss of a 
single life and with an accident only to one man. We have the same 
appliance on the American Line. The boats are put out and lowered 
down to the different decks where they are needed and the people are 
put in there under the supervision of the officers. That is the way 
that all practical people load their passengers into the boats. Never¬ 
theless the boats can be loaded from the boat decks in most of the 
modern steamers. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 17 

The difficulty with a mechanical device aboard ship at all times 
is that at the time it is needed most it sometimes happens to go 
wrong. What I mean by that is that we can not depend on the 
mechanical device to work, but seamen recognize the fact that prac¬ 
tical seamanship is better handled by seamen than by mechanical 
devices; so that our seamen are well drilled, and not only are our 
seamen well drilled, but also our firemen and stewards, and the sea¬ 
men and firemen and men of the steward's department are drilled 
in the handling of boats, both in fine weather in the port of New 
York and in case of disaster, and they are all drilled men. These 
men hoist the boats and lower them over the side of the vessel with 
the falls made of manila rope, which seamen recognize to be the 
best. The manila rope falls are not used because they are cheaper, 
by any means; they are used because all seamen know what a good 
manila rope is; and wire rope is apt to kink, and if anything happens 
to foul a wire rope you are done, because you can not cut it, and a 
manila rope is used by seamen in preference to wire rope in docking, 
and all such things. 

The manila rope is better, too, in case of fire. It will not burn. It 
will consume if it is put into a fire, but a good manila rope, because 
of the strength of its strands, will allow the fire to sweep over it, and 
it will be charred on the outside, but the heart of it will have sufficient 
strength so that it will hold. You take a small coasting steamer on 
the coast, and you take the great St. Paul and the St. Louis, with the 
great difference in the height of their sides, and it is hardly fair to ex¬ 
pect them to put the boats out from the St. Paul the same as from 
a small coasting boat, and it is not fair to put us to the test in the port 
of New York when the crews are ashore and there is no emergency 
behind them to put the stamina into those men. Of course the men 
may be three or four minutes putting the boats out. But you take 
the case of the Gladiator, and the St. Paul had her boats in the water 
inside of two minutes and was rescuing the men from the water within 
four minutes, and they had the old-fashioned falls and davits. It is 
rather hard, and the large ship is at a disadvantage, that it should 
have to do the same thing as the smaller ship in port. The Gladiator 
and the Georgia in the case of the Republic had their boats out quickly, 
as I say. While this gear now in use is gear that all seamen are famil¬ 
iar with, all seamen are not familiar with these devices. They would 
all have to be trained to that, but they all know where the boat falls 
are, and can cut them if necessary. Anyway, in the event of this 
amendment passing, it seems to us if the bill is passed requiring the 
putting of this apparatus or any other improved apparatus on board 
the new ships to meet the requirements of the inspectors, well and 
good; but we should not be put to the great expense of reequipping 
the old ships, when the present gear is approved by the government 
inspectors and the British Board of Trade as being efficient. We 
have never lost a life, and never will, with this present gear. 

Mr. Swasey. What would be the cost of renewing ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. It would average about a ton and a half to 2 tons 
apiece—I am speaking now of the large ships—at, say, 10 to 15 cents 
a pound, which would be about $750 a set for davits and $200 or $300 
for the little gypsy, with the wire; anywhere from $1,000 down to 
$300 or $400 for a smaller vessel. 

25486—10-2 


18 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Swasey. That is per boat ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes; that is per set of 2 dozen. 

Mr. Beer. May I ask the gentleman a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Beer. Are you an American ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. I am an American citizen; yes, sir. 

Mr. Beer. Born in this country ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. No, sir. 

Mr. Beer. You made the statement that the manila ropes, falls, 
etc., deserved great credit for having lowered the boats, etc., from 
the Republic without the loss of a human life. Will you kindly state 
to this committee how many hours or days you had to lower those 
boats ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. No, sir; I do not know. I do not know how 
much time there was given at that particular time. I quoted that 
instance to show that there was no loss of life with that type of gear. 
I quoted the instance of the St. Paul and the Georgic as an instance 
of the rapid action. 

Mr. Beer. Is it not true that you had about forty-eight hours to 
make that transfer? 

Mr. Luckhurst. I think there was plenty of time. 

Mr. Beer. Do you think that the manila ropes and falls deserve 
such a vast deal of credit for being able to empty the ship in forty- 
eight hours ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. I do not say that it was forty-eight hours. 

Mr. Beer. Captain, I am not hypercritical, but you made a state¬ 
ment that wire ropes are apt to kink and cause loss of life, and that 
manila rope will not burn. What sort of ropes do they use going up 
and down on the elevators in this building ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. I do not know. We had one carry away and 
injure two men in our particular place the other day. 

Mr. Beer. Yes, elevators for freight; but do they use manila ropes 
on elevators in general? 

Mr. Luckhurst. I was speaking of seamen handling boats. 

Mr. Humphrey. The committee knows about those things. We 
know about ropes used on elevators; that is a matter of common 
knowledge. 

Mr. Beer. The captain made the statement that those wire ropes 
are apt to kink. Here is a book showing the records of 2,000 vessels 
using these wire ropes, and so far not a single casualty. Thank you, 
very much. 

Mr. Humphrey. How long has the American Line been running ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Offhand, I would say twenty years. 

Mr. Humphrey. How many passengers has the American Line lost 
during its entire history ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. To the best of my knowledge and belief, not one. 

Mr. Humphrey. I think that is the history of the American Line; 
they have never lost a passenger. 

Mr. Beer. How about the loss of the Paris? 

Mr. Humphrey. How many lives were lost on the Paris? 

Mr. Luckhurst. The Paris went ashore on the rocks, in a dense 
fog, and there was nobody drowned. That is all, sir; thank you. 

(Adjourned.) 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


19 


Committee on the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington , D. C ., Friday , April 22,1910. 

The committee met this day at 10.50 o’clock a. m., Hon. William 
S. Greene, chairman, presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Goulden. Mr. Chairman, this meeting to-day is for the pur¬ 
pose of hearing the opposition to the bill H. R. 21836. You will 
recall that a week ago we heard those in favor of it. I would like to 
suggest that with the large number of gentlemen here they should 
arrange among themselves as to the division of time and the order 
of procedure. I presume they have had their heads together, and 
I trust that Captain Nickerson will be recognized to regulate the 
time of those to be heard. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. H. 0. NICKERSON, OF NEW YORK, SUPER¬ 
INTENDENT OF THE NEW ENGLAND NAVIGATION COMPANY. 

The Chairman. Captain, give your full name and address and 
position. 

Captain Nickerson. I represent the New England Navigation 
Company and also the National Board of Steam Navigation. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, some time ago|my 
attention was called to this bill and in the early part of March I 
received a copy of it. I think it was in March that the copy was sent 
to me. I immediately wrote a letter to this committee, directed to 
the chairmen, which I presume is on file. I have also copied it in 
this message to-day. 

I would further say that I do not believe such a bill should receive 
attention in your committee, but I have lately been informed that 
there is some danger of its becoming a law. I say “ danger,” because 
I do not consider it a proper bill and not in the interest of people 
who are passengers on steamboats or in the interest of crews. It 
seems to nave been proposed by some people who- are interested in a 
certain machine, which of course goes without saying. How much 
interest this committee has in it I do not know. I suppose they are 
looking at it merely from the point of view of a life-saving device. . 

Mr. Goulden. Right there I may say that the chairman of this 
committee and myself are responsible for the introduction of this 
bill, and that the people came to us in good faith, and we certainly 
had no other thought in our minds than that it was for the protec¬ 
tion and benefit of passengers. 

Captain Nickerson. I am informed that it has the approval of 
the Board of Supervising Inspectors. 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Mr. Goulden. Yes; that is correct. 

Captain Nickerson. But I am also informed that the bill has not 
been submitted to them for their approval or for any report that they 
may wish to make. I think they are the proper men to have some 
say in this matter. 

Mr. Humphrey. If you will permit an interruption, what this com¬ 
mittee wants to know is whether or not this apparatus will tend to 
protect life. I think that is the question we want to know. It seems 
to me the rest is not material. 



20 PROTECTION OP LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Maynard. It seems to me criticism of the committee is not. 

Mr. Goulden. I do not mind the criticism at all if it is just. 

Mr. Maynard. It looks to me, by the number of people here, that 
we are going to have a long hearing, and to indulge in criticism of the 
committee will take up a long time. 

Mr. Goulden. That is what we are paid for, to take up our time 
with public business. 

The Chairman. Proceed on the bill, please, Captain, and refer to 
the bill. 

Captain Nickerson. I want to give you some objections to the 
bill, and this is one: On July 8, 1902, at 11.7 p. m., the Priscilla, 
belonging to the New England Navigation Company, and the steamer 
Powhattan, of the Merchants and Miners’. Transportation Company, 
were in collision near Point Judith, R. I. ’ There was fog at the time, 
moderate southwest wind, and some sea running. The Powhattan 
struck the Priscilla on the port bow, going into the hull nearly amid¬ 
ships, and carrying away a water-tight bulkhead which made one 
water-tight compartment out of what was previously two compart¬ 
ments. This opening was so large that the water rushed in and filled 
this compartment in about two minutes. The consequence was that 
, the ship went down by the head 9 feet. 

The bulkhead forward of the boilers held, and the ship floated, 
but she was so much down by the head that she could not be steered. 
There was no need to lower lifeboats, but if the lifeboats had been 
rigged with the machine that you propose here shall be used in the 
future, and if it had been necessary to lower them, they would have 
gone into the water so much at an angle that possibly the bow might 
have taken in water and gone under before the stern was water-borne. 
This steamer lay until her mate, the Puritan, came to her assistance, 
on the morning of July 9. The Priscilla was so much down by the 
head that the Puritan towed her into Newport stern first. I mention 
this instance to show you that if there is any machine that is tied 
hard and fast, requiring the lifeboat to be lowered at the same speed 
at both ends, one end would have gone into the water first if it had 
been used in that case. 

There was another instance in our experience where the steamer 
Plymouth was in collision with the steamer City of Taunton , on March 
20, 1903, off Watch Hill, R. I. The City of Taunton struck the 
Plymouth on the latter’s starboard bow at nearly the same place 
that the Powhattan struck the Priscilla, carrying away one water¬ 
tight bulkhead, making one compartment out of what was previously 
two compartments, and the two compartments were filled. The 
ship went down by the head about 9 feet, but by good seamanship 
the master got her into New London. There were about 700 pas¬ 
sengers on board the Plymouth, and many of them did not know - 
about the accident for an hour. She was towed in to New London. 

Those collisions would have sunk ordinary' steamers, but the con¬ 
struction of those boats was such that they floated and got in all 
right. There were two cases where the lifeboats, if they had been 
geared with this device, could not have been lowered safely. If it had 
been necessary to lower lifeboats they would have had to lower the 
stern faster than the bow in order to have the lifeboats take the 
water on an even keel, and had this proposed new appliance been in 
use then, the lifeboats would have struck the water head first. 

Mr. Wilson. Did this vessel have any lifeboats on it ? 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 21 

Captain Nickerson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. Did they do any good to the passengers on board ? 

Captain Nickerson. It was not necessary. They stayed on the 
steamer. The lifeboats were not launched because it was not neces¬ 
sary to launch them. 

The Chairman. Why do you carry lifeboats if they are of no use ? 

Captain Nickerson. I did not say so. I did not say they are of 
no use. I say this device would have been of no use in those cases. 
That is to say, if we had been required to carry that device and had 
lowered the lifeboats with it, those vessels lay at such an angle toward 
the water that the lifeboats could not have been placed in the water 
successfully. 

Mr. Alexander. Do you think the lifeboats would have been 
swamped when lowered from a ship of that length ? Do you think a 
difference of 9 feet between the level of the bow and that of the stern 
in a vessel 450 feet long would have given an angle sufficient to 
swamp the lifeboats when lowered ? 

Captain Nickerson. It would have swamped the people in the 
lifeboats. 

The Chairman. I understood that none of the lifeboats were used 
on your boat. 

Captain Nickerson. None were used because none were necessary. 
I say, if we had had to lower them in order to take the people off the 
ship, there would have been that danger in lowering them. 

And then, as to this statement about lowering boats into the water 
in two minutes, we do it now with our present apparatus in less than 
two minutes. We lower the lifeboats from above 50 feet from the 
surface of the water in less than two minutes. I will give you an 
extract from a memorandum that I have here, showing that we do as 
well and in many cases better than the law requires in the matter of 
drills [reads]: 

Steamer Commonwealth , fire and boat drill, Tuesday, April 5, 1910: First boat 
lowered in one minute and fifteen seconds. 

Mr. Wilson. Do you lower the boats loaded? 

Captain Nickerson. No, sir. I think I would be committing 
murder, if a sea was running, to lower the boat full of people. 

Now, we have a report every week coming to my office, and it 
shows the time in which we get a boat into the water, and these 
memoranda here show the actual time consumed in lowering a life¬ 
boat of 275 feet capacity, meaning sufficient capacity to hold 27 
people. Those are very large boats. 

Mr. Simmons. If, as you say, you would lower your lifeboat on 
your ship in a minute and a half, what objection is there to this bill? 

Captain Nickerson. Well, as I say in this letter here, we are 
accomplishing as much and with as good results as that already, 
and with as good a device as we have ever seen; and while our com¬ 
pany has never objected to the adoption of any good device on 
account of its cost, this bill would cost my company $150,000, and 
not a dollar less, and probably more, and if you could equip all the 
vessels with this machine in twenty years’ time you would be doing 
well. Is there any sense in passing a bill to fit out the ships with a 
device which can not be operated successfully ? 

Mr. Simmons. It is information in regard to that which we would 
like to have. 


22 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Goulden. How many passenger vessels are there in the New 
England Navigation Company? 

Captain Nickerson. About 30 vessels. 

Mr. Goulden. How many lifeboats have you. to each of those 
vessels ^ 

Captain Nickerson. Our largest vessels have 12 lifeboats each. 
There are 6 of those large ones. Then there are some that have 10. 

Mr. Goulden. You would have less than 300 lifeboats, would you 
not ? 

Captain Nickerson. We will guess that. 

Mr. Goulden. The figures that have been given to us by three or 
four of the companies that manufacture this device show that it 
would cost about $300 to equip each lifeboat. Now, $300 each to 
equip 300 lifeboats would not amount to your figures. There is 
evidently something the matter with the figures somewhere. 

Captain Nickerson. We would have to install it. We would have 
to rebuild our decks everywhere to withstand that. I would esti¬ 
mate it would cost $1.000 a lifeboat. 

Mr. Goulden. The figures we had are $300. 

Captain Nickerson. I think that covers the machine alone. 

Mr. Goulden. It covers everything but the boat; and the boats 
now in use will apply, or, rather, the "device could be applied, to the 
lifeboats now in use. 

Mr. Humphrey. It does not cover the cost of any change that will 
be required to be made in the deck. Would the introduction of this 
device be of any advantage in saving life ? 

Captain Nickerson. I do not see where you would gain anything. 

Mr. Wilson. Don't you think it is better to load a life-saving boat 
before it is put into the sea than load it afterwards ? Don’t you think 
it is better to load it on deck ? 

The Chairman. Load the people on deck ? 

Mr. Wilson. I mean, load the people in the boats while the boats 
are on the deck, and then put them in the sea. Don’t you think that 
is better for the saving of life to load the people in the boats first and 
lower them, not subjecting the people to the risk of getting into the 
boat while it is in the sea in a time of storm? Don’t you think that 
is a safer way for the saving of life than it would be to load the boats 
after they are in the sea ? 

Captam Nickerson. No. The great trouble in lowering a boat— 
you are away off on this subject; that also does not amount to any¬ 
thing—but it is the swing of the ship that causes the danger. If a 
boat is light and has nothing in her, two or three men may be able to 
hold her off from the ship, in the sides, with poles and boat hooks, and 
so on; but if you load a lifeboat with anything and lower it and then 
allow the boat to bump against the ship, there is nothing to prevent 
that lifeboat from being smashed against the side of the ship. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, you have not examined the 
apparatus of other lifeboats ? You are satisfied with the lifeboats you 
have and the apparatus you have, and you have not examined any 
improvements ? 

Captain Nickerson. I have looked at quite a number. 

The Chairman. You have never seen a machine by which the life¬ 
boat could be lowered loaded with people ? You have never seen 
a boat lowered into the water with people in it ? 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


23 


Captain Nickerson. No. 

The Chairman. Others have. You say you have not seen it ?> 

Captain Nickerson. We have had our boats tested with the 
weights. 

The Chairman. It is impossible to do that, you say, because you 
are liable to tip the boat up on end and throw people into the sea 
with your present apparatus ? It would not be safe to load the people 
on the boat and undertake to drop it into the water ? 

Captain Nickerson. It would be safe enough if the ship were still 
and there was no heavy sea running. The law requires us to have 
such apparatus now. 

The Chairman. You consider the apparatus you have now as an 
apparatus that would enable you to have your lifeboats loaded with 
people and landed in the sea without their tipping at the end ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes. 

The Chairman. 1 understood you to say it was impossible to load 
the people in the boats and then lower them into the sea. 

Captain Nickerson. I say it is not safe to load a boat and then 
lower it when a heavy sea is running. 

The Chairman. That is, with the apparatus you have? 

Captain Nickerson. It is not safe with any apparatus. I do not 
believe it is safe with any apparatus unless you can get it away from 
the ship, 15 or 20 feet, to keep it from swinging against the side. 

Mr. Maynard. Even then, Captain, would it be possible to lower 
a lifeboat in a heavy sea without swamping it ? 

Captain Nickerson. Oh, yes; if you can keep it away from the 
ship you can lower it all right. 

Mr. Maynard. If she was loaded ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. Your idea is if the boat is loaded the boat in striking 
against the ship will be damaged ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes. 

The Chairman. I agree with the captain on that fully, that that 
is so with respect to the lifeboats that he now has on his steamers and 
the boats that are now carried on certain other steamers. I have seen 
them. There would be no question but that, if you undertook to 
let them down into the sea, the chances are 10 to 1 that you would 
dump the people in the sea. 

Captain Nickerson. Do you know of any new device that would 
prevent that ? 

The Chairman. 1 have seen such devices. 

Captain Nickerson. When the sea is rolling? 

The Chairman. Yes. I have seen them in operation. But 1 am 
like the man who says, “I do not know what the truth is of what has 
been told to me, but it has been told to me and I believe it.” 

Captain Nickerson. I will candidly say to you that I do not 
believe anybody has got a machine yet that will put a boat into the 
water safely unless they get it a good ways from the ship before they 
commence to lower her. If you mash her right down on the side of 
this boat she will be smashed. The davits will not be put farther 
over the side than the present davits. 

The Chairman. Oh, yes; they can be. 

Mr. Humphrey. If they do have a device of that kind it will not 
require legislation for you to be induced to use it ? 


24 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

"Captain Nickerson. No, it will not. It may require us some time 
to build it. I notice in the pamphlet here that Mr. Goulden says in 
the General Slocum case many lives would have been saved if they 
had had this gear. 

Mr. Maynard. That claim was made by one of the representatives 
of the company in New York City. 

Captain Nickerson. I contend that nothing would have saved that 
boat unless you had had some device to put that fire out. I think 
people have been scared crazy about the Slocum business, but I think 
it is time for people to begin to mind their own business. 

Mr. Goulden. Do you think we are sent here to mind our own 
business ? 

The Chairman. Captain, you will recall when they used the old- 
style brake on the railroad, trains, do you not ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you recall when they first undertook to 
introduce the automatic brake on the trains, the strong opposition 
that was manifested to its use ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes. 

The Chairman. They now use them everywhere. Is there any 
railroad that would go back to the old brake to-day ? 

Captain Nickerson. No. 

The Chairman. If a better apparatus than that which you now 
use could be purchased, don’t you think you are in duty bound to 
use it if it can be purchased ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes. But if there are but two machines on 
the market, you would compel us to use one of those and pay any 
price that they might see fit to charge us, and you would not give us 
opportunity to use any other invention or machine that would come 
into the market. Have you demonstrated that this is all right? 

The Chairman. I think time enough would be allowed to every¬ 
body in which to prepare their boats. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you examined this machine at all ? 

Captain Nickerson. No, sir; and I hope you will not compel me to. 

Mr. Hardy. If it is a good thing, why not examine it ? 

Captain Nickerson. I will, but I did not want to before I came 
here. 

Mr. Hardy. It looks to me as though you ought to examine it 
before you can know what it is. 

Captain Nickerson. I understand it is a device to lower a boat, 
even, on the side, so that she will take the water on the level. Now, 
that is a good thing in its way, but there are many men who are 
resourceful masters of ships, or who are resourceful in any other busi¬ 
ness, that can rig up a device and an appliance to meet the occa¬ 
sion, and there are many times when, if this law were passed, that 
boat is right there solid and she has got to be loaded just so; no 
flexibility is permitted in the rules of the ship, and the law has got 
to be obeyed. Now, if the master of a ship could see a way to launch 
his boat in any other way and do it safely,‘he would have no chance 
to do it or would not be permitted to do it because he is confined to 
the terms of this exact law. 

Mr. Goulden. Captain, in regard to the charge that you made a 
moment ago, that under this law it would be required that the ship 
should be equipped at once, such is not the intention. You will 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 25 

find, if this bill becomes a law, that there will be ample time given, 
say three years, in which to equip the boats. 

Captain Nickerson. That is all right, but don’t you think it 
would be fair to leave such devices in the hands of the board of super¬ 
vising inspectors and let them approve any machine they see fit, 
and then let the people adopt them if they think they are practicable ? 
If a device is valuable and practicable they will want to use it without 
its being made compulsory. 

Mr. Goulden. The Steamboat-Inspection Service has already 
approved one or two or three or four of them. 

Mr. Wilson. This bill does not provide for any particular appli¬ 
ance. 

Captain Nickerson. I understand; but there is only one, or only 
one or two, appliances that will do this. 

Mr. Wilson. I understand from the Steamboat-Inspection Board 
that there are several appliances that will fulfill the requirements. 

Captain Nickerson. The nearest that comes to it is the Welin 
device. The manager of that concern is-here to-day, and he will 
probably have something to say if you want to hear from him. I 
do not think his apparatus will be just what is required here. » 

Mr. Wilson. If it does not, then it will not be used. 

Captain Nickerson. That will leave the other one, then, that you 
have in mind, but I am told that it is the only one that will meet the 
requirements of your bill. If you can shov T me any other, I would 
like to hnow\ 

Mr. Goulden. There are others. 

The Chairman. Are you aware that there are other patents lying 
in the Patent Office now, practically in the same line, that would 
probably be developed if they could find a market for their goods? 

Captain Nickerson. I hope they will be developed very fast, 
because if you have anything better than w r hat we are now using 
we want it. 

The Chairman. As I understand, you do not want to change from 
what you now have ? 

Captain Nickerson. I do not want to be compelled to install a 
device that is no improvement upon what we have now. If you can 
make any machine that can do better than two minutes, then we will 
be willing to—— 

Mr. Goulden. There is nothing farther from the minds of those 
that introduced the bill than that. If we can not improve upon it, 
we do not want you to do it. 

* Mr. Alexander. From your experience with the present method 
of lowering lifeboats, has there been any serious loss of life on account 
of the present methods of lowering them ? 

Captain Nickerson. No, sir; I do not know'of any. We have a 
number of lifeboats that are equipped with the Irving life-saving 
gear and boat-handling gear, that swings the boat out with a crank 
and lowers the boat with a brake. It is a very good device, but it 
does not meet the requirements of this bill. It lowers one end of the 
lifeboat at a time. But in this new device proposed here you can 
not lower one end faster than the other. In the Irving life-saving 
gear and boat-handling gear the ends are not connected. 

Mr. Goulden. Could they not be connected ? 

Captain Nickerson. Some mechanics might devise something to 
do that. We have two sets on the steamer Commonwealth, and when 






26 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

she had a collision a year ago last July, near the mouth of Long Island 
Sound, the other ship was sunk and went down out of sight in less 
than ten minutes, and we lowered the lifeboat with one of those 
machines anti picked up every one of the crew with that one lifeboat, 
and the boat went into the water in less than a minute and a half. 

Mr. Goulden. You admit that the devise that you now have is a 
distinct advantage ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes, sir. It is a good device, and we intend 
to put more on. But this bill of yours stops us. We intended to 
install a number of those machines on our steamers. It is a very 
good device. 

'Mr. Goulden. Here is an amendment that I proposed to offer before 
this hearing began: 

That this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage as to vessels 
now being constructed and hereafter constructed; and after the expiration of three years 
years from the date of its passage shall apply to all other vessels: Provided That the 
Board of Supervising Inspectors shall have the power, as to vessels already constructed, 
after full hearing being given to all parties interested and after proper consideration, 
to extend the time in which this act shall become effective for a further reasonable 
period. 

That amendment was thought of before you came here at all, 
because I realized that it would be a hardship to compel all vessels 
to-day to be equipped within six months or a year, which was the 
original intention. What do you have to say about that amendment ? 

Captain Nickerson. I do not object to it. 

Mr. Goulden. You think that is not as objectionable as the 
original bill ? 

Captain Nickerson. Certainly. It extends the time. But I do 
not think it should become a law. 

Mr. Goulden. You think a device of a similar character that 
helps at all is an improvement ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes; I think a device that helps above 
what we have now is an improvement. The objection to this gear to 
my mind is due to the fact that the boat is continually in one position. 
If your ship is 10 or 11 feet by the head, as, for instance, was the 
case at the time the Florida came into collision with the steamship 
Republic off Nantucket, it would not have answered the purpose. 
The Florida went by the head, and if she had been equipped with this 
device and the attempt had been made in that case to lower her life¬ 
boats, you would have had such an angle that it would have been 
fatal. If you could adjust it and lower the boat at the proper angle, 
it might do; but as it is, it would not. 

Mr. Goulden. You know, Captain, the object of this hearing is t<3 
bring out what we should do to make the bill as perfect as possible or 
to defeat it entirely. That is why we asked you to come here. 

Captain Nickerson. That is the point 1 make, that this device 
ought to be arranged so that your machinery could be adjusted, 
before you lowered the boat, to the angle that your ship sets in the 
water. 

Mr. Goulden. And that is the only objection you have to it, if this 
amendment were added ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes; and the extra expense. I do not think 
that you have much improvement, even then, over what we have 
now. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


27 


Mr. Goulden. Except to make what you already have a little more 
perfect ? 

Captain Nickerson. Our machine is about as good now as it can 
be made. 

Mr. Sturgiss. What is the average length of your lifeboats ? 

Captain Nickerson. About'SO feet. 

Mr. Sturgiss. If a ship 450 feet long was down at one end 10 feet, 
that would be feet to 100 feet in length, and that would make a 
difference of 10 inches in your lifeboat. Would that difference of 10 
inches endanger life materially ? That is a practical question. 

Captain Nickerson. I think it would, if your lifeboat were loaded 
with people. If you put 27 people in that boat you would be close 
to the water line. 

Mr. Sturgiss. When a boat is bouncing up and down on the waves, 
it is a good deal more than 10 inches ? 

Captain Nickerson. Yes; but when you have 27 people it will not 
give your lifeboat more, than 5 or 6 inches freeboard. That is a 
matter for these mathematicians to figure out. I have not gone into 
that part of it. I would like to introduce Captain Luckhurst. 

(The following was filed by Captain Nickerson:) 

The New England Navigation Company, 

Office of the Acting General Manager, 

New York , April 20, 1910. 

Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Congress , Washington, D. C. 

Sirs: Some time in the early part of March I received a copy of H. R. 21836. I 
certainly was surprised to find that such a bill had been presented, and I immediately 
called a committee of the National Board of Steam Navigation to take action upon 
same, and the result was a short letter of protest, dated March 11, 1910, signed by the 
members of that committee and forwarded to the chairman of the Committee on the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries. It reads as follows: 

“We have before us H. R. 21836, which was presented to the House on February 
25, 1910, by Mr. Goulden. 

‘ ‘ It goes without saying that we object to the proposed amendment, because it is 
not practicable; it holds the officers of a ship to a hard-and-fast rule, so that in cases 
of emergencies they have no discretion in the matter of handling their lifeboats. We 
assume that navigation laws are amended in the interest of people ‘who go down to 
the sea in ships,’ but this amendment, from our point of view, is impossible of 
attainment. 

“Lifeboats on any vessel can be loaded as they sit on deck, but we know of no 
machine that would safely lift a boat and swing it out after being loaded; in any case 
it would be dangerous to load a boat before lowering. In a very moderate sea a boat 
can .be lowered when light with much less danger of smashing against the side of the 
vessel than she can when loaded. 

“There are times when we want to lower a lifeboat one end a little faster than the 
other just before striking the water, and this amendment would prohibit that; life¬ 
boats should not strike the water squarely; the stern should take the water first. * 

“ Why should falls on lifeboats be fireproof? In cases of disaster, lifeboat falls some¬ 
times have to be cut, and in order to be fireproof they must be made of wire, in which 
case they could not be cut. 

“ The present law is ample and sufficient in every way as well as stringent and we 
believe that any further change should be left to the discretion of the Board of Super¬ 
vising Inspectors, who have the necessary authority under the present law (see R. S., 
4488). 

“ The following are the committee that have been appointed by the national board 
of steam navigation to make this protest. The membership of this board appears on 
the margin of the first page of this letter. 

“H. O. Nickerson. 

“J. M. Cherry. 

“A. J. Grymes. 

“W. E. Bernard. 

“E. F. Moran.” 


28 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


I did not believe that such' a bill would receive much attention in your committee, 
but I have lately been informed that there is some danger of it becoming a law. I say 
danger, because I do not consider it a proper bill and not in the interest of the people 
who are passengers on steamships or crew. It seems to have been proposed by some 
people who are interested in a certain machine. 

My company never objected to fit out its steamers with any life-saving apparatus 
on account of expense, if the appliance was really a life-saver of*any kind, but we 
do object to the proposed bill for many reasons, among them being the following: 

On July 8, 1902, at 11.07 p. m., the steamer Priscilla, belonging to the New England 
Navigation Company, and the steamer Powhattan, of the Merchants and Miners Trans¬ 
portation Company, were in collision near Point Judith, Rhode Island. There was 
fog at the time, moderate southwest wind, and some sea running. The Powhattan 
struck the Priscilla on the port bow, going into the hull nearly amidships and carry¬ 
ing away a water-tight bulkhead, which made one water-tight compartment out of 
what was previously two compartments. This opening was so large that the water 
rushed in and filled this compartment in about two minutes. The consequence was 
that the ship went down by the head 9 feet. The bulkhead forward of the boilers 
held and the ship floated, but she was so much down by the head that she could not 
be steered. There w~as no need to lower lifeboats, but if the lifeboats had been rigged 
with the machine that you propose shall be used in the future and it was necessary to 
lower them, they would have gone into the water so much at an angle that possibly 
the bow might have taken in water and gone under before the stern was water borne. 
This steamer lay until her mate, the Puritan, came to her assistance on the morning of 
July 9. The Priscilla was so much down by the head that the Puritan towed her into 
Newport stern first. 

On March 20, 1903, at 12.05 a. m., the steamer Plymouth and the steamer City of 
Taunton were in collision off Watch Hill, Rhode Island. The City of Taunton struck 
the Plymouth on the latter’s starboard bow at nearly the same place that the Powhattan 
struck the Priscilla , carrying away one water-tight bulkhead making one compartment 
out of what was previously two compartments. The Plymouth went down by the head 
about 9 feet, but by good seamanship the master got her into New London. 

This is another case where, had it been necessary to lower lifeboats, they would have 
had to lower the stern faster than the bow in order to have the lifeboat take the water 
on an even keel. Had your new appliance been in use the lifeboats would have struck 
the water head first. 

Here are two cases of collisions where the construction of the steamers saved them 
from sinking, and the steamers got into port safely without launching their boats. You 
can guess what would have happened if they had been fitted, as I said before, with any 
appliance that compelled the lifeboats to be lowered the same speed at each end. 

The desire to have life-saving appliances in the matter of launching boats has pro¬ 
ceeded in the wrong direction; everybody has in view the idea of lowering the boats 
from davits as they are situated now, but the only safe way to lower a lifeboat when 
the sea is running is to have some appliance that will launch a boat a distance from the 
side of the vessel, and when that device has been brought to perfection you will find 
all of us ready and willing to adopt it. 

Mr. Goulden, in his speech before the House of Representatives on March 21, a copy 
of which I have, speaks of the cost of running American ships. I believe he has a bill 
now before your committee which requires the owners of American ships to increase 
their crew lists 33£ per cent, so that the ships will be forced to carry three watches. 
It would seem to be consistent to demand a subsidy for our coastwise and inland steam¬ 
ers if we are to be burdened with every appliance that some enthusiast, who thinks he 
can revolutionize everything, suggests. 

The present bill that I am opposing, if made a law, will cost my company $100,000 
to install the new appliances on all its vessels, with no gain in the way of safety to the 
passengers or employees. 

We do not object to a machine being approved by the board of supervising inspectors, 
so that anyone may use it if they see fit, but we do object to the arbitrary law that says 
we shall use some appliance of this kind. 

Is it not about time to call .a halt and let us run our steamers for a while without 
having to fight some new law which practical men do not believe is necessary? 

We have a fire drill, also a boat drill, once every week as the law requires; all hands 
are mustered to their stations, and after the drills an inspection is made of the steamers. 
We also collect the Crew in the saloons and exercise them in the actual method of 
putting on life preservers. The following memorandum will show that we do as well 
and in many cases better than the law requires in the matter of the above drills: 

Steamer Commonwealth, fire and boat drill Tuesday, April 5, 1910. First boat 
lowered in one minute and fifteen seconds. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 29 


Steamer Plymouth, April 19, 1910. First boat lowered in one minute and twenty- 
five seconds. 

Steamer Providence , April 4, 1910. First boat lowered in one minute and thirty- 
five seconds. 

Steamer Pequonnock, April 10, 19*10. First boat lowered in one minute and twenty 
seconds. 

Steamer Massachusetts , April 9, 1910. First boat lowered in two minutes. 

Steamer New Haven , April 6, 1910. First boat lowered in two minutes. 

Steamer New Hampshire , April 7, 1910. First boat lowered in two minutes and 
forty-seven seconds. 

Steamer City of Lowell, April 6, 1910. First boat lowered in two minutes and fifteen 
seconds. 

Steamer Chester W. Chapin , April 7, 1910. First boat lowered in two minutes. 

Steamer Naugatuck, April 2, 1910. First boat lowered in one minute and thirty- 
five seconds. 

Steamer New Shoreham, April 7, 1910. First boat lowered in two minutes and five 
seconds. 

Steamer General, April 9,1910. First boat lowered in one minute and forty seconds. 

Report was made of all these drills by the masters, giving the time of lowering the 
boats. There is much rivalry between the different officers who have charge of these 
boats to see who will have the first boat in the water. 

I would further say that lifeboats are set on ocean steamers on the upper deck, which 
is the proper place for them, and from 40 to 50 feet above the water. If there is any 
sea running whatever, it would be criminal carelessness on the part of the master of a 
ship if he loaded his lifeboats with passengers before lowering them, for it would be 
almost impossible to lower them to the water without disabling the lifeboats by 
striking against the side of the steamer. 

Yours, truly, 


H. O. Nickerson, Acting General Manager. 


The Chairman. We will hear from Mr. Joyce next. 


STATEMENT OF HENRY L. JOYCE, OF NEW YORK, MARINE MAN¬ 
AGER OF THE CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW JERSEY. 


Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we are opposed to the 
passage of this bill because we think it is too drastic, even accepting 
the amendment proposed by Mr. Goulden. If-you would change that 
amendment so that it would read that this should apply only to all 
vessels constructed after the passage of the bill, we would not have 
so much objection, but the bill as it stands at present applies to 
every boat that comes under the supervision of the Steamboat-Inspec¬ 
tion Service.. 

Now, what is the necessity of making this act apply to tugboats 
when a man can step right off his tug into the boat? The idea of 
having this apply to all boats coming under the jurisdiction of the 
Steamboat-Inspection Service is to us ridiculous. 

The Chairman. If this were a toy apparatus I would agree with 
you, but if it is of use, if it is of value—if it is not of any value, that 
is another thing—but if it is of value, why should it not apply ? 

Mr. Joyce. The bill now says that it shall apply to everybody 
coming under the jurisdiction of the Steamboat-Inspection Service. 
That would apply to coal barges and tugboats and everything. We 
believe this is a matter that can be safely left to the supervising 
inspectors, and as to that board, so far as we can find out, this bill 
has not the approval of their department. We have a fleet of 8 
ferryboats plying between Twenty-third street, Forty-second street, 
and Liberty street. New York City, and Communipaw Station, on 
the New Jersey side, and we are running a line of steamers taking 
from fifty-five minutes to one and one-half hours from New York to 


30 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Atlantic Highlands. We carry approximately 30,000,000 passengers 
a year. We have not lost a life in ten years. All our ferryboats are 
equipped with 4 lifeboats each. Two minutes is the maximum 
time taken to lower them into the water. All the lifeboats are 
equipped with the one-handle device, except the Asbury Parle, where 
the Raymond hooks are installed. Each of our ferryboats holds, 
under the eye of the pilot, a weekly fire and boat drill, and during 
the season a storm drill is held on each of the Sandy Hook steamers. 
We are also called upon by the inspectors in New York to have 
actual demonstrations made in their presence without previous notice 
at any. time, and in connection with those we have never received an 
unfavorable report from the local inspectors. Last season we re¬ 
ceived letters from the local inspectors complimenting us on the effi¬ 
cient manner in which our lifeboats were handled. For the past ten 
years this company has not had an accident requiring the lowering 
of lifeboats, although we carry approximately 30,000,000 passengers 
a year. 

Now, if you were to amend this bill so as to have it apply to any 
boats hereafter to be constructed, there would not be the objection 
that will arise all over the country otherwise, because under this bill, 
as it is at present, you are bound to have every man who is trying to 
make a living out of a tugboat come under this provision. 

Mr. Humphrey. If this proposed new apparatus is of any benefit, 
why should it not apply to any vessel ? 

Mr. Joyce. I do not think it is necessary. I think this is a mat¬ 
ter that can be safely left by our lawmakers to the board of super¬ 
visors and inspectors. They understand everything in connection 
with it. They know what is the safest thing for vessels in their par¬ 
ticular districts to be equipped with, and I consider this legislation 
entirely unnecessary. 

Mr. Goulden. Would they have any power or authority to com¬ 
pel you or the men operating passenger boats to equip your boats 
with any certain device ? 

Mr. Joyce. I think they have the power under the general statutes 
to compel us to equip our boats with a number of safety devices. 

Mr. Goulden. Have they not enough troubles of their own just 
now to keep them busy ? 

Mr. Joyce. I think they are very strict, or have been very strict 
since the. Slocum disaster, to which you alluded, which happened in 
your district, but this is not the time on the part of owners and opera¬ 
tors of floating equipment to economize. We do not think it neces¬ 
sary. Of course, the Pennsylvania carries very much more than we 
do, but I repeat that we carry 30,000,000 lives a year with safety, 
and have had no occasion in ten years to lower a lifeboat. I suppose 
you understand since the Slocum disaster that the department is 
very strict in having these weekly fire drills ? 

Mr. Goulden. If such a device as that provided by this bill were 
necessary, your people would not hesitate to equip your boats with 
it, or, if you thought it would be an advantage to the traveling public, 
you would not hesitate ? 

Mr. Joyce. No, sir; but We think we have done everything that is 
necessary for the preservation of human life. We do not oppose this 
on the ground of economy. But it should not apply, any way, to any 
class of boats except passenger boats, and if the committee intends to 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


31 


report this bill favorably, we ask that the bill be so amended as to 
apply only to those vessels hereafter constructed and to passenger 
boats. Right in your district, Mr. Goulden, I suppose you have 150 
tugboats plying to Harlem and up the Hudson and East River. You 
know what those small boats are that go through the Harlem River. 
Under this bill they would be required to be equipped with this device, 
whereas a man can step right off the deck into the lifeboats, and no 
devices are necessary at all. 

The Chairman. I would like to inquire of you whether }'ou are 
familiar with what is called the “ commission bill,” prepared by a 
commission appointed by President Roosevelt, in regard to the safety 
of vessels at sea ? 

Mr. Joyce. In what particular? 

The Chairman. A bill introduced by Mr. Goulden, and a like bill 
introduced by Mr. Humphrey. Are you familiar with that bill ? 

Mr. Joyce. No, sir; I am not. 

The Chairman. There has been a good deal of opposition on the 
part of steamboat people to that bill, and yet that bill was framed 
by the very people who you say ought to be allowed to supervise 
these things. If you want that bill adopted we can accommodate 
you. 

Mr. Joyce. I am not here to make an argument in favor of that 
bill, but I believe, Mr. Chairman, that naval men controlled that 
commission, and- 

The Chairman. On that commission the President selected repre¬ 
sentatives of the Steamboat-Inspection Service and the Commis¬ 
sioner of Navigation and representatives of the Light-House Board 
to regulate the steamboats. 

Mr. Joyce. The naval men were a majority on that commission, 
and I believe that the last man in the world to be allowed to make 
any regulation for the government of the merchant marine is the 
naval officer. 

The Chairman. General Uhler approved every item of that bill. 
He is the supervising inspector of steamboats. 

Mr. Joyce. What has that bill to do with this particular device ? 

The Chairman. You say you would be in favor of leaving it en¬ 
tirely with them to say what they want, and this is what they want. 
The bill has not yet passed this committee, but it is under considera¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Joyce. Are you prepared to state that General Uhler assented 
to every provision of that report? Did lie not make a minority 
report ? 

The Chairman. He did not; but Mr. Chamberlain did make a 
minority report. 

Mr. Joyce. As far as that goes, I will only say that we will cross that 
bridge when we get to it. 

The Chairman. I wanted to see how you stood on your position. 
In one respect you say you want to do what they want, and in another 
you say something else. 

Mr. Joyce. I beg your pardon, sir. What I said was this, that we 
were perfectly willing to leave with the discretion of the supervising 
inspector the determination of what sort of a device should be used 
on our craft. 




32 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Alexander. It is provided in the present law that— 

Every steamer navigating the ocean, or any lake, bay, or sound of the United States, 
shall be provided with such numbers of lifeboats, floats, rafts, life-preservers, and 
drags as will best secure the safety of all persons on board such vessel in case of disaster. 

Mr. Joyce. That is section 4488 of the Revised Statutes. 

Mr. Humphrey. In view of that section do you see any necessity 
for this legislation ? 

Mr. Alexander. Not at present. 

Captain Nickerson. Your new life-saving devices are a failure. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR J. GRIMES, OF NEW YORK, SUPER¬ 
INTENDENT OF THE MARINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ERIE 

RAILROAD. 

Mr. Grimes. Mr. Chairman, I will not take up the time of the com¬ 
mittee with any argument. I only indorse what Mr. Joyce has just said 
in a general way. We operate the same class of boats that the Central 
Railroad of New Jersey operates and under the same conditions as he 
has just described. Personally I think, as he does, that this matter 
can very safely be left‘to the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervis¬ 
ing Inspectors, whose rules we have got to comply with; and the law 
just read by a member of your committee, it seems to me, gives them 
all the jurisdiction that is necessary. If the committee thinks that 
they have not got enough power to compel the owners to use the 
safety devices that they should use, we have no objection to the com¬ 
mittee giving them more power, or to Congress giving them more 
power. But we do not think they should pass a specific law com¬ 
pelling us to use a certain device. 

We took this same position a short time ago, when we appeared 
before you in regard to the crewing of steamers. A bill was before 
you compelling us to carry, or trying to make Congress enact into a 
law a provision requiring that a certain crew must be carried on all 
boats. We objected to that, and told you we were perfectly willing 
to allow the United States inspectors to say what crew, in their judg¬ 
ment, was safe and proper for the owners to carry, and the committee 
agreed with us. 

The Chairman. That bill is now pending before this committee, 
and the time is set for final action a week from yesterday. 

Mr. Grimes. I know another bill has been introduced, but I had 
reference to the bill introduced a year ago, or a year and a half ago. 

Mr. Sturgiss. Just one question. The witness who preceded you 
said that this would require barges to carry lifeboats. I think he 
misapprehended the language. It is “every~ steamer.” 

Mr. Joyce. Every vessel coming under the jurisdiction of the 
Steamboat-Inspection Service. 

Mr. Sturgiss. I inferred from what you said that it was applicable 
to ferryboats. There is nothing in it applicable to ferryboats if they 
are only plying on rivers. The bill does not apply to any navigable 
streams. 

Mr. Joyce. What would you call the Sound? Section 4488 says: 

Every steamer navigating the ocean, or any lake, bay, or sound of the United States, 
shall be provided with such numbers of lifeboats, floats, rafts, life-preservers, and 
drags as will best secure the safety of all persons on board such vessel in case of dis¬ 
aster, etc. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


33 


And further on it mentions “ every vessel subject to the provisions 
of this title.” 

The Chairman. Y es; where it brings in all vessels under the Steam¬ 
boat-Inspection Service. 

Mr. Sturgiss. I think not. It includes “ every such vessel navi¬ 
gating any of the northern or northwestern lakes,'” but I do not find 
where it makes it applicable to river navigation. This applies to the 
navigation of streams. 

1 he Chairman. That is practically the same law that is in effect 
now. 

Mr. Sturgiss. Yes. 

The Chairman. There is no change. 

Mr. Sturgiss. There is no change in what it applies to. 

The Chairman. Ihere is no change at all. It is just the same as 
the present law. 

Mr. Sturgiss. I am sure I am anxious to find out what is desirable, 
and if your criticisms are directed especially to the bill and what it 
provides for, and not going outside of it into matters that we are not 
interested in and that could not be decided by this committee, I 
think you will expedite the hearing. 

Mr. Joyce. We say that we do not think this should apply to the 
Sandy Hook Line and the ferryboats on the Hudson River. 

Mr. Goulden^ Take out the Hudson River. 

Mr. Joyce. Well, how about the North River? 

Mr. Goulden. Leave it out, too. 

Mr. Joyce. Hqw about the Sandy Hook Line. 

Mr. Goulden. Your Sandy Hook route will come in, but the Hud¬ 
son River Line will not. 

Mr. Sturgiss. That is what we want light on, whether the bill 
should include the waters of rivers which it does not now include, 
and whether or not there is any reason why it should ? 

Mr. Joyce. I think you gentlemen can all appreciate that there is 
no necessity for making this apply to a boat crossing the river, a ferry¬ 
boat, which takes only from 6 to 10 minutes to go across. 

The Chairman. Then it should be specifically stated. Section 
4488 says 11 Every steamer navigating the ocean or any lake or bay 
or sound.” That is what the law is to-day. It is not changed; not 
a word. 

Mr. Joyce. Yes; but the law to-day does not compel us to put 
some particular patented device on. 

The Chairman.. Neither does this bill. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. ALLEN LUCKHURST, MARINE 
SUPERINTENDENT, AMERICAN LINE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Will you give your name to the stenographer? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Allen Luckhurst. 

The Chairman. And your occupation. 

Mr. Luckhurst. Master mariner. I represent the American Line. 
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the question came 
up just now in regard to the launching of a lifeboat in a seaway, as 
to whether it would be better to load the passengers or others on 
board the ship into the lifeboat when it was in the water, or while the 
boat was on the ship's deck, before that boat was launched. Gentle- 

25486—10-3 


34 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

men, it is very difficult for you or anyone to comprehend conditions 
that might prevail at the time of an accident to a ship, we will say, 
in a heavy gale of wind. Personally, as a shipmaster, with a large 
ship foundering in a heavy sea, with a heavy gale of wind, I say 
small boats would be of very little use anyway in saving life. But 
assuming that you could get your boats out; we will assume that the 
sea is rolling high and there is a heavy wind, and in that case Mr. 
Nickerson said that a seaman would lower his boat into the water and 
then put his people into the boat, because if he loads that boat on 
the deck of the ship on a dark, dirty night, with the sea rolling high 
and the ship rolling heavily, when you put that boat over the side 
the chances are, in fact it is almost certain, that that boat will come 
to the ship’s side and be smashed, or the people will be thrown out of 
the boat. 

I have to-day seen a boat apparatus here, I believe one of those 
that is under consideration at the present time, and, gentlemen, I 
venture to say, as a master mariner, if that gear came to me for 
adoption, one of the first points I would raise in connection with 
launching a boat in a heavy sea would be this: Assuming that I had 
decided to put my people in the boat before putting it into the 
water, I would want to see that boat lowered into the sea, and I 
would want to do that with the present method that we now have 
in use and have had in use for hundreds of years; that is, with proper 
seamen standing at the falls, at the davits, at the side of the ship, 
watching that boat enter the water with its crowd of precious human 
lives; because if I stood back with a Martin gear and attempted to 
launch that boat into the sea or attempted to lower it into the sea, 
that boat would come back against the side of the ship, and I would 
be back here on the deck where I could not see what was happening 
to that boat. 

The Chairman. Suppose you are lowering it with nobody in it; 
what would you do with the present apparatus ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. With the present apparatus I have to-day I 
would simply have two seamen at the davits, at the falls, lowering 
away simultaneously, and when the boat was water borne, the appa¬ 
ratus would release the boat- 

The Chairman. What would prevent the boat from smashing? 

Mr. Luckhurst. The difference in weight of the boat loaded with 
50 people, and of the empty boat, is very great, and probably if she 
did strike against the side of the ship, with the concussion she would 
receive, being empty, she would rebound without being injured, 
whereas if the boat was filled with the weight of 50 people it would be 
so much heavier that it would come to and be bilged. There is a 
great difference between a light boat and a heavy boat. 

The Chairman. What would be the difference between lowering it 
in the old way and with the apparatus ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. There is just this difference, that at that time you 
have the seaman’s judgment which comes in, and not a piece of mech¬ 
anism on board the ship. 

The Chairman. How do you get your people into the craft, as you 
stated ? Your steamer is up in the air, and how do you get them into 
the boat ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Lower them down in baskets; put them down in 
ropes; let the seamen climb down the side ladders with them. There 



PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


35 


are many ways that seamen use for getting people into boats. The 
ship that I commanded some years ago picked up a crew and pas¬ 
sengers in the Atlantic off of a sinking steamer, 750 people, in a heavy 
sea, in the steamer’s boats, with the same equipment we are now 
speaking of, which is in general use, and not a single one was lost. 
Even the babies were brought up in coal baskets. We did not lose 
a soul. 

The Chairman. You say you suppose that there would be only one 
person near this apparatus, and the rest of the vessel would be 
deserted, and that one person would not take any precaution in 
lowering the boat. Your proposition would be that this would be 
one man trying to dump that boat over in the dark, without any 
care at all. Now, you require, on your own statement, a great deal 
of care on the part of your crew in order to get your people into the 
boat when it is down in the water, in the rough waves. 

Mr. Luckhurst. She is clear of the davits, clear of the ship, except 
holding by her painter, at that time. And then, considering that I 
had the other men watching with the Martin gear, that mechanism 
might cause disaster. 

Mr. Humphrey. I was told yesterday by a sailor that it was a 
great disadvantage to have both ends of the boat lowered at the same 
time, because he said sometimes a wave would run in and swamp 
a boat, when if one end was lowered faster than the other it could 
be avoided. 

Mr. Luckhurst. I think there is nothing in that, because a sea 
runs very quickly. In all my experience I have never seen a boat 
that was lowered by two seamen, at the two ends, lowered any other 
way than simultaneously. Perhaps one end of the boat might be a 
foot lower than the other, but the boat is water borne at the same 
time, and both falls are released at the same time. 

Mr. Humphrey. That is, as near as possible at the same time ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. As near as is practicable and safe. I do not know 
of any authentic case on record where a Iiuman life has been lost, 
with the present type of boat falls and the present methods, that 
could have been saved had such a mechanical device been in use as 
the Martin gear. 

Mr. Goulden. Before you leave that let me ask you a question. 
What do you say as to Captain Nickerson’s claim that with a steamer 
down at the head you could not lower the boat with the two falls of 
the same length, because one end of the boat would be much lower 
than the other? Captain Nickerson said that there were two cases 
upon his line where steamers were down by the head 9 feet. What 
effect would you say that would have upon lowering a boat into the 
water ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. As a general thing, I would say, of course, you 
would be lowering your boat and releasing your falls to get simulta¬ 
neous action whether the ship was by the head or by the stern. As 
a seaman, I can not see that it would have a material advantage on 
getting the boat away. The present type of boat falls have been in 
use on board ships and have stood the test under many conditions. 
On his own admission one of the parties [interested—I think it was 
Mr. Martin—stated that his gear had not been proved, and yet it is 
proposed that shipowners and experienced seamen should be obliged 
to condemn gear that has given satisfaction for years, and install new 


36 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


gear which is almost untried, and which it will take years to prove 
under the regular conditions met with at sea. 

The Chairman. Mr. Martin has never been before this committee. 

Mr. Luckhurst. It was Mr. Wills, then, representing the Martin 
gear, who made that statement. You have all heard the statement 
made that the gear had not been proved under stress of weather at 
sea. A demonstration given with any apparatus in fine weather with 
smooth water and other suitable conditions may be very good, but 
let us try to picture the gear like that which has been submitted to you 
in actual use on a dark, stormy night at sea, with the ship rolling 
heavily, the wire fall in question corroded from long use, the surging 
and plunging of the boat putting a strain on its single part which it is 
unable to take care of, and the fall snapping, owing to its loss of 
elasticity and original strength, and plunging the boat load of people 
into the sea. 

Wire must be renewed the same as rope; and unfortunately bad 
wire can not be detected before it breaks, whereas manila rope can. 

The Chairman. How often do you renew your manila ropes ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. About once a year. They are examined fre¬ 
quently to see what their condition is. We are under the supervision 
of our local inspectors. We will look into the heart of that rope and 
decide whether we shall condemn it or not. If it is condemned, it is 
used about the ship for other purposes, and if it is good, it is kept 
there for the next voyage. These ropes are renewed about once a 
year, on the average. 

The Chairman. Do you use wire rope on any of your vessels ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. 

The Chairman. And why do you use it ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Because it is more economical. 

The Chairman. Then why could it not be possible to be used in an 
apparatus for lowering a boat? 

Mr. Luckhurst. It is not so efficient. We have condemned the 
use of wire rope not from economy, but because we know that it is 
going to fool us when it is most needed. 

The Chairman. Why do you use it at all ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. It is very good for many things. We find that 
wire rope used as a mooring rope is all right. Used in that way it is 
not so serious a thing as when it is used for a boat fall. We put wires 
out, and they last seven or eight years, to hold a vessel at a dock, and 
if one wire should part there is the other from the other bow, so there 
is no harm done; but in the case of a boat fall there is nothing else to 
hold the boat; nothing else to depend on. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to say there is no way of testing a 
steel-wire cable ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. There is no general way to test wire rope and 
cable. 

The Chairman. Are there not miles upon miles of wire cable 
used now ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. 

The Chairman. On elevators, for instance ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. 

The Chairman. And in a great many other ways ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN, 37 

The Chairman. Who would think of using manila cable on an 
elevator ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. That is under different conditions. 

The Chairman. Yes; I understand that. 

Mr. Luckhurst. And on the cable on an elevator you have not 
that strain and that surging and jerking that there is between a ship 
and a boat to contend with. 

The Chairman. I understand; but you are condemning the use of 
steel wire rope and cable. 

Mr. Luckhurst. For this particular feature. 1 am upholding their 
use for other purposes; for illustration, for mooring ships and for other 
purposes the wire is more economical, such as a hawser, a stream cable, 
and other things that it may be more serviceable for. 

The Chairman. Did you ever know a rope to break in launching a 
boat ? 6 

Mr. Luckhurst. No, sir; I have never heard of falls carrying 
away that way. 

The Chairman. Never ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. No, sir. I am speaking, of course, of the well- 
equipped Atlantic liners. On smaller ships they may be more negli¬ 
gent on that. I do not know. There you have that boat surging and 
plunging, and a strain on this particular part; and say you are 
attempting to lower a boat at the two ends, as required under the 
present bill, consequently that fall must be an endless fall, and there 
you have this whole boat surging and plunging on this one part. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen it? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes; lots of them. 

Mr. Fairchild. Do you understand there are devices similar to this 
used extensively abroad and very successfully ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes; I was coming to that. 

Mr. Fairchild. Very well. 

Mr. Luckhurst. Therefore that wire rope, we will assume, has been 
neglected and it is in bad condition, and it snaps and dumps the boat 
load of people into the sea. Gentlemen, it is not always a question 
of speed in getting out a boat; it is not there that the advantage and 
safety lie. On the rivers and in harbors it might be a benefit. How¬ 
ever, smooth water and rough water make a great difference. In a 
heavy seaway, with the ship rolling, great caution and seamanship 
must be displayed, and you can not trust to a friction brake or a piece 
of mechanism which in unskilled hands or by failure of the mechanism 
might plunge a heavy boat filled with people into the sea. 

The Chairman. It would not be necessary to dump the boat load 
into the sea when the waves were high, would it ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. The point is that you are depending on a piece 
of mechanism in one case and in the other case you are depending 
upon the skill and intelligence of seamen. 

The Chairman. Not at all, any more than you depend for what 
you have got to do on the wisdom of your men. It would not be 
necessary for you to have only one man on a boat. 

Mr. Luckhurst. No; you would have to have more than one, 
because if you had only one man he could not see, while he was 
working on this mechanism submitted this morning, what he was 
doing. 

The Chairman. You would not put a blind man on that job. 


38 PROTECTION OP LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Luckhurst. Put a man on it that has every sense about him, 
and he can not see that boat surging and plunging in the sea while 
he is working this mechanism. Put an intelligent man on it, and he 
could not do any better. I know that I really could not work the 
thing, and I know something about ship’s gear. 

The Chairman. We will concede the latter assertion. 

Mr. Luckhurst. If you come to economy, shipowners know that 
wire is the best for economy, as a general thing, but they also know 
that it is not the best thing for the purpose. They know that manila 
rope, from their years of experience, has been proven to be the most 
reliable. They use the more expensive manila rope for boat falls, 
and renew it when necessary, because they realize, from years of 
experience, that it is the most reliable. On the large ships of Ger¬ 
many, Great Britain, France, and other nations, thousands of dollars 
are spent in decorating a saloon, for instance, and they have life¬ 
boats, and suitable equipment throughout not only to save life, but 
to make it comfortable for the people under their charge; and yet I 
am safe to say that more than 90 per cent of those ships, with their 
up-to-date appliances, continue to use manila boat falls, and appli¬ 
ances that have withstood the many tests put upon them, and which 
have not failed; and yet, gentlemen, it is now proposed that United 
States shipowners and seamen shall be obliged to condemn similar 
equipment which they use, and shall be compelled to install a patent 
mechanical contrivance which, we are told, has not been tried out 
under similar circumstances, and might fail when most needed. Is 
such a course justified? I think not. 

The Chairman. Wait a moment. How often do you renew your 
manila rope ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. When circumstances require it. 

The Chairman. Well, how often; once a year or once every two 
years or three years ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. I said about once a year; that is about the 
average time. 

The Chairman. Suppose an amendment was made that the pro¬ 
vision of this bill should apply to vessels now built, only after three 
years, or even longer- 

Mr. Luckhurst. But why do you want us to discard something 
that has been proved thoroughly by years of service? You are 
asking us to accept something in its place that has not been proved 
thoroughly. 

The Chairman. That is very true; but the argument that you use 
would be just the same argument, exactly, that was used when I 
was a boy when a common brake was in use on the railroad trains, 
and it was proposed to put a better one on, and the railroads fought 
the proposition until they were compelled to put the automatic 
brake on all trains. 

Mr. Luckhurst. The brake proved itself as more efficient. 

The Chairman. Yes, but they would not have put it on then if 
they had not been compelled to. 

Mr. Luckhurst. However, gentlemen, if from the evidence you 
have had you are satisfied that there may be some advantage gained 
by the new method, may we suggest that the measure be not made 
retroactive, but be made to apply to new construction, say, to ves¬ 
sels built during a limited time of, for instance, five years subsequent 



PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 39 

to the approval of this measure, and to new construction thereafter, 
providing seamen shall have proved the device from experience under 
all conditions met with at sea to be a decided advantage over the 
present standard method? This would give it a good start, and 
providing it is as meritorious as it is claimed to be by those inter¬ 
ested, it would then stand on its merits, and the device of the type 
proposed, having the greatest simplicity combined with efficiency, 
would become popular. This would further the intention of the bill. 
That is the proposition we offer for your consideration. 

Mr. Goulden. You heard the amendment read, did you not? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. That, as applied to new work, is entirely 
satisfactory, because then it would be a question of growth, and it 
would prove itself in the growth. 

Mr. Goulden. What have you to say as to the provision that it 
shall not apply to other vessels until after three years ? Do you object 
to that last clause—“after three years?” 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. 

Mr. Goulden. You object to that? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes. 

Mr. Fairchild. You did not cover the question which I asked 
you as to whether devices similar to this were used abroad, and 
successfully ? 

Mr. Luckhurst. Yes; there are devices on the market that I 
have seen, and which they have had fairly practical experience with, 
which are, I think, very satisfactory. They are efficient and eco¬ 
nomical. They are not cumbered up with miter gearing and bevel 
gearing, and all sorts of things that complicate them. There are that 
sort of things on the market. What we want you gentlemen to do is 
this, not to limit us to any type of machine at all, but let us go where 
we can get the most efficient and simple. Not economy, but sim¬ 
plicity aboard ship, is what we want. Then when we have put it 
on our new ships and proved it out, it will follow right along; and 
let us leave it to our judgment, so that we can put it on on our own 
judgment. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE F. MORAN, PRESIDENT OF THE 

MORAN TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, OF NEW 

YORK CITY. 

Mr. Moran. At the last hearing it was brought out that under 
section 4488 this applied to every steamer navigating 11 the ocean or 
any lake, bay, or sound of the United States.” This applies to all 
our great bays around New York. It was brought out here, and I 
would like to have it made clear and to have the committee under¬ 
stand it, that this is to apply to every steamer coming under section 
4488. That would make it apply to all the fishermen and all the 
motor boats and tugboats running in and out of the port of New 
York, and I was going to say there are something like 3,000 boats 
engaged in carrying passengers, both for pleasure and hire, particu¬ 
larly in the fishing business, running out of New York. Those boats 
range in value from several hundred dollars to three or four thousand 
dollars. Is it the intention of the committee that this should apply 
to them? 

The Chairman. Do they carry lifeboats ? 


40 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Moran. Most of them trail lifeboats behind them. They have 
not sufficient room to carry them on deck, but the law compels them 
to carry lifeboats. 

Mr. (jtOULDen. The law can not compel them to do so if it is impos¬ 
sible for them to do so. 

Mr. Moran. The law compels them to. 

The Chairman. I think there is no change in this law from the 
present law, as you will find if you compare the language. 

Mr. Moran. Oh, yes; I beg to differ with you. 

Mr. Alexander. This bill is to amend section 4488. 

Mr. Moran. Yes. 

Mr. Alexander, Tell us how it affects tugboats ? 

Mr. Moran. As I understand, this is manipulated by a man stand¬ 
ing back on the deck 6 or 8 feet. 

Mr. Goulden. In those I have seen the man stands within 2 feet 
of the rail. 

Mr. Luckhurst. It was not so with the apparatus I saw. I could 
not see over the side when I was at the brake this morning. 

Mr. Moran. In Xew York Harbor we have something over 300 
tugboats. Those tugs range less than 80 feet in length, with an 
average breadth of 18 feet. That would mean that the width of 
the house on those tugs would not be over feet. Now, how are 
we going to rig up an apparatus of that kind on that deck space? 
I have not looked at the gear and I do not know what it is, but I 
would like to have the committee take that matter into considera¬ 
tion before acting on it, for the smaller vessels. 

Mr. Sturgiss. Do these tugs carry lifeboats now ? 

Mr. Moran. Yes; they carry lifeboats now. 

Mr. Sturgiss. This would not only increase the number of life¬ 
boats that they carry, but they would also have to have this device 
for handling them. 

Mr. Moran. I so understand it. Take a tug that is, say, 18-feet 
beam, and she has 3 feet on each side of the main house, and that 
would take 7 feet off, leaving the house with an average width of 10 
or 15 feet, which would divide it up, a great many of them, for the 
skylight, and the entire width of the house would be required for this 
equipment. 

Mr. Sturgiss. Do you make the objection that the space on the 
ship is taken up by the apparatus ? 

Mr. Moran. I have not examined the apparatus. 

Mr. Sturgiss. That appears to be the only objection, because it 
does not increase the size or the number of lifeboats at all. 

Mr. Moran. It is not from that point that I am arguing. My 
point is that you are going to compel us to put this apparatus on the 
lifeboats on the small tugs, which range in value from $5,000 to 
$10,000. You are going to make us pay $300 to put an apparatus 
on a vessel that I venture to say you can not put it on; you will have 
to rebuild the vessel to put it on. 

Mr. Sturgiss. You mean this apparatus? 

Mr. Moran. Yes; from what I have seen this morning. I have 
not examined it, or I would be better prepared to talk about it. I 
think you ought to examine into that. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 41 

STATEMENT OF MR. HORACE WILSON, PRESIDENT OF THE 
NATIONAL BOARD OF STEAM NAVIGATION. 

Mr. Wilson. I wish to say that I agree, in the main, with what 
Captain Luckhurst has said and with what has been said by those 
who have preceded me, but I wish to call the attention of the com¬ 
mittee to one feature that seems to me to be a crucial one in the con¬ 
sideration of this matter, and that is that if this proposed amendment 
should go through you will be making a hard and fast law to govern 
conditions that are extremely varied. As I understand the purpose 
of giving to the supervising inspectors discretionary powers for 
making rules that have the force of law, it was for the very purpose 
of arranging to meet these varied conditions, and I believe there will 
be a great hardship if this act is passed, by reason of the imprac¬ 
ticability of its application in all the conditions. There may be, and 
doubtless are, conditions in which this proposed legislation would 
be very much of an improvement, but I believe there are other con¬ 
ditions wherein it would be a great hardship, and not only a hardship 
but a detriment, and instead of operating as an improvement it 
would be a movement in the other direction. 

Mr. Sturgiss. That is a very general statement. Give us an 
illustration of where it would operate detrimentally. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Moran has referred to the tugboat question; 
and then there are smaller craft that would be affected by this act, 
or at least that would seem to me to be affected. Now, the wisdom 
of relegating the making of rules to the supervising inspectors may be 
questioned. At some times I think it is wise and at other times I 
think it is not wise; but if you make a hard and fast law to govern 
the matter of steamship passenger transportation, you are liable to 
go up against a snag, and it seems to me there is more wisdom in 
leaving the thing in the hands of the supervising inspectors, at least 
in this particular. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT LOGAN, MARINE ARCHITECT, 

CLEVELAND, OHIO. 

Mr. Goulden. Whom do you represent? 

Mr. Logan. I have been sent here by the Lake Carriers’ Associa¬ 
tion to represent their interests in this bill, and I suppose you all 
know what the Lake Carriers represent. 

Mr. Goulden. Yes; we hear from them right often. They are 
very wide-awake, progressive people. 

Mr. Logan. They do not include the packet lines or the passenger 
lines on the Great Lakes. All other boats engaged in the transpor¬ 
tation of freight they do represent, and they wish to state that they 
have the same objections to the bill that have been noted by these 
gentlemen who spoke this morning, and that is as to the necessity 
for providing for the loading of the boat on board before it is launched. 
They thing that is useless, and there is no need for making that pro¬ 
vision, because they are a unit in claiming that they never under any 
circumstances would load other than when the boat was in the water; 
so that thev want that idea eliminated as to that necessity. 

Then the" other point is as to the lowering of the boat so that the 
two ends shall have the same speed and come to the water at the 
same time. They do not think that is necessary. 


42 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Goulden. What is the objection to that ? 

Mr. Logan. It is not necessary. 

Mr. Goulden. It is not necessary ? 

Mr. Logan. Yes; that is the main objection to that. 

Mr. Goulden. It would not make any difference whether one end 
went down ahead of the other? 

Mr. Logan. No; there is no objection to its landing in the water 
squarely, but it is not necessary. That is the objection to that. 

Another objection is that so many boats on the Lakes would have 
to be remodeled and strengthened; that they would not only have to 
change their apparatus but they would have to be strengthened 
before such a device as this one is could be put upon them. 

Mr. Goulden. How would they have to be strengthened? 

Mr. Logan. The weight is now taken on the main deck, a strong 
deck, but with this apparatus the weight would be taken on the upper 
decks, and in the case of passenger boats, with the light wooden decks 
away up, the material of which is only about seven-eighths plank, 
they would not be strong enough. At the same time, if the device 
is going to be of any service they are willing to waive the question 
of the cost of it. 

Mr. Simmons. If there was any advantage in this new device, I 
suppose it would occur under conditions in which the vessel was in 
distress, and probably in a heavy sea? 

Mr. Logan. Yes. 

Mr. Simmons. Now, if such a thing should happen, what advan¬ 
tage would this device have over the present method, in the saving 
of life? 

Mr. Logan. We can not see any. 

Mr. Simmons. You can not see any? 

Mr. Logan. No, sir; we can not see any at all. 

Mr. Simmons. If you had to unload your vessel quickly, could you 
do it more quickly and safely, with regard to the lives of the people 
on board, with the new device than with the present one ? 

Mr. Logan. No, sir; we do not think so. 

Mr. Nickerson. Have you seen the new device? 

Mr. Logan. Yes; I went down and saw it this morning. 

Mr. Nickerson. You have seen it? 

Mr. Logan. Yes. This is the only one, I think, that will fill the 
necessity. 

The Chairman. You have not been to the Patent Office and seen 
any of the others? 

Mr. Logan. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You have not been across the water and seen 
those they are using over there ? 

Mr. Logan. No, sir; but I have seen the Welin. It is not made to 
lower both ends of the boat at the same time. 

Mr. Nickerson. What is your opinion of that one you saw this 
morning ? 

Mr. Logan. I would not care to use that at all. The man operat¬ 
ing that is away back here at the operating wheel, and he can not see 
what he is doing. The other way, he is standing here [indicating], 
and can see just exactly what is happening to that boat. 

The Chairman. How do you lower lifeboats to-day ? 

Mr. Logan. They have a fall of manila rope. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


43 


The Chairman. How many men does it take ? 

Mr. Logan. One man at each end. 

The Chairman. Do they confine it to only two men ? 

Mr. Logan. They belay the fall around a belaying pin—— 

The Chairman. No; but I want to know whether, when you are 
lowering a lifeboat to-day, you confine it to those two men, and if any 
other man comes near it, you say u Get away from here; we have two 
men and we do not want any help ?” 

Mr. Logan. Two is all that is required. 

The Chairman. Is two all that you use? 

Mr. Logan. Two is all we use, is it not, Captain Nickerson? 

The Chairman. You do not seem to know? 

Mr. Logan. I am not a navigating officer. 

The Chairman. But you say you are standing back here, away, and 
you can not see. Suppose there was another man that had eyes, that 
could see? You would not put a blind man there, would you? 

Mr. Logan. No. 

The Chairman. I think you must have been blind when you looked 
at this apparatus. You did not try to look at it with the design of 
seeing whether it could be used or how it could be used, but you tried 
to make it as uncomfortable as you could. 

Mr. Logan. There is another objection to that, on the Lakes, where 
we have so much snow and ice; that will get jammed at the very time 
you want it. There is a lot of gear there that gets jammed up with 
ice and clogged with frozen snow. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have your manila ropes get clogged 
with ice ? 

Mr. Logan. No; they have covers on them, and you rip the covers 
off when you want to use them. 

The Chairman. Covers on them ? Why could not covers be put 
on these, to keep the snow and ice off ? 

Mr. Logan. And then there would have to be some device to put 
the covers on. 

The Chairman. A device to put the covers on. Yes, it would 
take a human being to sew a piece of canvas and put it over it. Of 
course, if you are going to say that a tailor shall do it, that is a dif¬ 
ferent matter. It will be somebody. You seem to take the ground 
that no other except this which has been in use always can be used, 
and if any other is going to be used besides that, there is a block built 
up, so that you can not see. 

Mr. Logan. If there is any improvement, of course, we are in 
favor of it.. 

The Chairman. You have not looked at it—have not the means 
to find objections. How have you formed your idea that only the 
Martin device will come within this bill ? What makes you think so; 
and what makes you think at all, anyway ? What makes you think 
so? You say you are not a seafaring man. 

Mr. Logan. No; but I am a marine architect. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Logan. Because it is the only device I know of that is of- 

The Chairman. Because you have not seen any other device ? 

Mr. Logan. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is all? 

Mr. Logan. Yes. 



44 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

The Chairman. That is enough. You have not seen any other 
device, so that you do not know whether there is any other device 
that will come within the provisions of the bill or not. 

Mr. Logan. Then we have the same objections to the wire rope that 
were made this morning. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Goulden. What would be your objection if the bill were 
amended as suggested by myself? What is your objection to it then, 
if any? 

Mr. Logan. I have not any. 

Mr. Goulden. You have no objections? 

Mr. Logan. No. 

STATEMENT OF ME. A. P. LUNDIN, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL 

MANAGER, WELIN QUADRANT DAVIT COMPANY, 17 BATTERY 

PLACE, NEW YORK CITY. 

The Chairman. Have you a model of your apparatus ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes; I have a model here. 

The Chairman. You represent the Welin device, do you ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes; I bought the patent of the Welin device some 
y^ears ago, about four years ago, and I have been exploiting it ever 
since. 

The Chairman. Have you read this bill ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes; I read this bill about two weeks ago, all by acci¬ 
dent—a friend of mine called my attention to it. 

The Chairman. Do you think your apparatus would come any¬ 
where near it ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes, it can. In fact, we are equipping one ship now 
upon the Great Lakes—the steamship Alabama of the Goodrich Line— 
with drums; two drums with the one shaft, and these drums are ar¬ 
ranged in such a way that they could use either wire rope or manila 
rope, which ever they would choose to do, of course, at their option, and 
it is more or less an experiment. Also we have already equipped 
three ships abroad with lowering devices of somewhat different type. 

Of course you quite understand that I am in a peculiar position 
here. I did not intend to come here or bother you, at all. It is not 
my policy 7 to mix in any politics, or anything. We have been working 
the Welin davit on its merits heretofore, and I dare say, if you should 
look up the records, it is about the only mechanical davit up to date 
that has been practical enough to be generally adopted on its merits. 
We have not used any pull or any influence, but the shipowners 
have been kind enough to try it on its merits, and invariably have 
come back and given us duplicate orders. 

Of course we have tried to keep this device as simple as possible, 
because we realize that in the matter of life-saving on the high seas 
the conditions vary so often. There are conditions that may arise 
to-morrow that never occurred before. I had been following the sea 
myself for twenty-one years before I took up this business, so that I 
have launched a lot of lifeboats, so I know what this means, and 
therefore I know it is of the greatest importance to have gear, if it is 
mechanical gear, that is as simple as possible. 

Mr. Goulden. Will you give us an estimate of the cost per lifeboat 
to equip with your apparatus? 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 45 

Mr. Lundin. Well, if it is new construction, I would sav for the 
average boat carried in coast ships here in the United States, 24 or 
25 feet long, our price for the davits alone would be about $475 per set. 

Mr. Goulden. Do the davits alone that you speak of include all 
the machinery and paraphernalia? 

Mr. Lundin. \es; that includes all the machinery. 

Mr. Goulden. Everything complete? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. Then, of course, if you get a fair deduction for 
the old round-bar davits, and also make a little allowance for difference 
in installation, you might deduct $100 to $150 per boat from that, 

Mr. Goulden. That would make it, then, say $350 per boat for 
everything complete ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. Of course in all ships that are built with the 
old-fashioned round-bar davits the case is quite different, because 
there you have to reenforce the decks and make alterations, and of 
course you have to take out the old round-bar davits and throw them 
away for scrap iron, and you do not get any deduction, and you also 
have to spend money on the installation; so that in that way with 
our ordinary davit it would probably run up to $600 or $650. 

Mr. Simmons. Would it be safe to lower a boat, after it was loaded, 
with your device ? 

Mr. Lundin. Well—oh, yes; although I do not always recommend 
it. That always depends upon conditions. 

Mr. Simmons. The condition of the sea ? 

Mr. Lundin. Conditions of the sea; conditions that may arise that 
no man has ever anticipated. I of course during my earlier career at 
sea met various conditions, and very often the same conditions were 
repeated; but now and then there arose a new and extraordinary 
condition. I made this matter of life-saving, of launching lifeboats, 
a particular study, and so much so that I even took a course in 
naval architecture, took a year off and took a private course in naval 
architecture at the Boston Tech, in order to post myself and under¬ 
stand designs, etc., of ships, and plans, and to know in a general way, 
so as to«be able to look at it from a technical point of view. 

The Chairman. Before you leave that let Captain Nickerson ask 
you a question. He wanted to ask you a question, and he did not 
like to interrupt you, and now if you will indulge him it would be a 
good time for him to do it. 

Mr. Nickerson. I have looked somewhat into the Welin davit with 
the idea of having some of them installed in times past, and in talk¬ 
ing with the agent, some time within the year, he said that his price 
for the machine was $500. Our estimate for installing new machines 
on our steamers by reinforcing and throwing away old materials 
brought it up to over $900. I wish to state that in Mr. Lundin’s 
presence, because he thought that the cost of installation of a new 
machine on an old boat was about $600, if I understood him aright. 

Mr. Lundin. That was for a 24-foot boat. 

Mr. Goulden. What is the length of your boats, Captain Nickerson ? 

Mr. Nickerson. About 30 feet. 

Mr. Goulden. About 30 feet? 

Mr. Lundin. That is what I wanted to come to. We build life¬ 
boats, too. Our concern builds about 60 per cent of all the lifeboats 
used in the United States, and we build all the lifeboats that Captain 
Nickerson buys, you know, and I know from the size of his boats 


46 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


they would require the largest size of our davits. I gave you the 
price on the davits for a 25-foot boat that is ordinarily used in coasting 
vessels; but the Fall River Line have exceptionally large boats. 
I know of no coasting vessels that carry as large boats as the Fall 
River Line, and the Fall River Line boats would require larger 
davits, and in that case the installation would probably come up to 
$175, so that you see it would be about $800; and if Captain 
Nickerson will give me the contract to equip all his ships, I will be 
pleased to undertake it for $800 a boat. 

Mr. Nickerson. We prefer our own. 

Mr. Lundin. Now, reverting to the bill in particular, I do not care 
to take any particular part in it. I consider it my duty, so long as 
my friends here wanted me to come here, to draw your attention to 
one or two things in this bill. Of course, I realize that it is right and 
proper in a way that some provisions shall be made in the statutes of 
the United States, as well as of other countries, with regard to the 
launching of lifeboats. Of course, we have a lot of rules and laws 
about how many lifeboats are to be carried and also as to the con¬ 
struction of them, but there has been up to date really no provision 
made in the statutes as to the launching of lifeboats, and it is quite 
right and proper that there should be such a provision; and the way 
it looked to me a long time ago I thought it would probably come up 
sooner or later, I thought if it does not come up this year, if it 
does not pass this year, it will be left to the next year, and we will 
always have more accidents on the sea as well as on land, and some 
day there is going to be some great tragedy, and the public at large 
seem to be getting more excited all the time, and then there will be 
an opportunity for certain people to bring this forward again, and the 
chances are that if they pass something it will be so drastic that it 
will be almost impossible to fulfill. 

Now, as to this bill in particular, it is a very strict bill, and very 
rigid. I think, as far as the time required for launching the lifeboat 
is concerned, that is only reasonable, and also with regard to loading 
the lifeboat while on deck, while inboard. Of course, there you 
have to use a certain amount of discretion. If I was in command of 
a ship and got into a collision to-day or to-morrow, and there was a 
rough sea, I would proceed something like this: I would call all hands 
to man the boats and get them ready for lowering, and then I would 
give instructions to place all the women and children in the boats, 
and then swing them out and lower them. If there were some sick 
men and so forth, I would put them in, but any able-bodied man, I 
do not care whether he is a sailor or not, ought to be able to get into 
a boat after it is in the water. 

The Chairman. Could you do that in two minutes? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. 

The Chairman. You could put the women and children and certain 
passengers in the boats and launch them in two minutes ? 

Mr. Lundin. No; I am coming to that. That is the way I would 
proceed. It might take some time, two minutes or five minutes or 
ten minutes, before you would succeed in getting all those people in 
there, and of course then it would be a physical impossibility to cover 
all this in two minutes. But the way I "understand the bill, or the 
way I think it is meant, is that the time is to be counted from the 
time that the people are in the boats. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 47 

The Chairman. That is the intention, and then to lower the boats 
in two minutes, and that is the present law. 

Mr. Nickerson. The present law says from the time you commence 
to clear away. 

Mr. Alexander. That is two minutes from the time that the 
clearing away of the boat is begun. Section 4488 says: 
within two minutes from the time the clearing away of the boats is begun. 

The Chairman. You could not take 60 people, women and children, 
and load them in and lower the boat in two minutes. 

Mr. Luckhurst. And then taking the boat covers off, that is a 
part of the time, before you get your people in. 

Mr. Lundin. There should be some discretion left with the inspect¬ 
ors in that respect. The boat should be launched in two minutes, 
and whatever time it takes to get the necessary complement of pas¬ 
sengers in the boat, that would not be included in that time. 

The Chairman. Would it not take longer if you put your women 
and children and sick people in by the use of the latest appliances 
while the boat was in the water than if you put them in while the boat 
was inboard ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes; but with our improved davits they can very 
readily do that. With the ordinary davit they can launch the boat 
with the full complement of men and passengers in it; but you must 
bear in mind several things in this. In order to insure the quick 
action of the crew, you have to have boat drills, and in order to make 
those boat drills effective you should have actual conditions every time 
you drill. You should have the boat filled with people. How long do 
you think the boat would stand that sort of drill every week or so ? I 
know something about the strength of lifeboats, and I know for a fact 
that if you should perform such boat drill it would be necessary to fit 
the boats specially or else you would have to furnish new boats about 
every six months. That is one part I wanted to draw to your particu¬ 
lar attention. And yet I think it would be an advantage to have that 
as preparation for the time of a disaster. It would not be necessary 
in these drills to go through all the proceedings. You could swing the 
boat out without putting it in the water, and it would not be necessary 
always in performing the boat drill to have the boat full of people; but 
it might be sufficient if you lowered it with one-third or one-half the 
number of people you would have under actual conditions. It means 
a great deal. 

You must bear in mind that those great steel boats that they carry 
on the Atlantic liners have a capacity up to 75 or 80 people. Now 
you can figure on an average of 150 pounds for each man and woman, 
and just think of the tremendous weight you have there; and the 
ship is rolling, and the boat has got to be hung more or less forward 
and aft. Just think of the tremendous weight that there would be 
in that boat and of the strain on the boat. You have to leave some¬ 
thing to the common sense of humanity in everything. 

The Chairman. I will ask you this question: If you were lower¬ 
ing your boat with passengers in it, and you saw it was an unfavor¬ 
able time to launch it on the wave, you still could hold it until you 
got ready to launch it ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It would not be necessary to dump the boat in on 
a wave that would be sure to capsize the boat ? 


48 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Lundin. No. It would not be necessary if you had effective 
gear—that is, lowering gear. 

The Chairman. Your gear, your apparatus, is sufficient to do that ? 

Mr. Lundin. Not our regular gear. It is sufficient to do it if y r ou 
eliminate that part of the requirement, that the two ends of the boat 
have got to be lowered at the same time. 

The Chairman. You can not lower the two ends at the same time ? 

Mr. Lundin. Not unless we apply our late drum device. Now, I 
am talking in a general way about our regular Welin davits, that we 
have sold in the last two or three years about 3,000 sets of. So far 
as the drum gear is concerned, I am convinced that our drum gear, 
whether we use wire or any other kind of a rope, will prove the most 
effective and will also be the most economical and most useful for a ship 
to provide. 

The Chairman. And it will be preferable to the maniH rope ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes; that is my personal opinion. At the same time 
I must consider that it takes some time to experiment. Now, we 
have become positively sure about the Welin davit, the regular 
davit, because it has stood the test now for about five or six years, 
and of about 80 different steamship lines that have bought our davits 
we have received repeat orders from 72. 

Mr. Goulden. Wherein does^ your davit differ from the davits 
used to-day on the main lines of steamers all over the country, the 
old-fashioned davit ? 

Mr. Lundin. I have a model here. 

Mr. Goulden. No; we do not want the model. Will you not tell 
us wherein they differ ? 

Mr. Lundin. The difference is that you have control of the boat; 
you have mechanical control. 

Mr. Goulden. Must your boats be put out at the same time or 
must they be put out one at a time ? 

Mr. Lundin. That depends on the frame of the davit. For 
instance, it is rather difficult to turn the two boats at the same time, 
to swing the frames, because they come together. But who would 
ever consider swinging out all the boats at the same time? They 
would knock together in a seaway and spill the people out. That is 
all nonsense. They can take the second boat and perform the opera¬ 
tion in the two minutes required. I should think that was sufficient; 
and then there is more safety in doing it that way. 

Mr. Goulden. Are your davits swung out by an automatic device ? 

Mr. Lundin. By a screw, by a crank, one man at each crank. It 
is really immaterial whether they go exactly at the same time or not, 
because the davits move parallel, and the only difference in the 
davits is that we have a quadrant on which the davit rolls, just like a 
wheel, and then they control the movement with the screw, and it 
gives you a tremendous leverage. Then we have the compensation 
of the falls, so that when the boat goes that way it clears the deck 
[indicating]. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask you this question. You seem 
to be disposed to be fair in your statement. 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. 

The Chairman. You do not think, then, that this bill would create 
a monopoly so that only one company could alone comply with the 
requirements of the bill ? 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


49 


Mr. Lundin. Well, to be candid with you, gentlemen, I would say 
that if anyone would have the chance to get a monopoly, I think it is 
our own concern. 

The Chairman. But do you think this does create a monopoly ? 

Mr. Lundin. No; I do not think it ought to. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Lundin. Because there are so many other devices. 

The Chairman. That is what we wanted to know. 

Mr. Lundin. During the last twenty-five years there have been 
2,500 patents issued on launching devices. There are not many of 
these that are worth the paper they are printed on, so far as the 
boat launching apparatus is concerned. 

The Chairman. Could you, without much trouble, produce your 
model here and let us see it ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes, sir; it is in the other room and I can bring it in. 

The Chairman. We want to get along as rapidly as we can, but I 
think we would like to see the model. 

Mr. Goulden. Captain Nickerson, have you your device patented? 

Mr. Nickerson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lundin [exhibiting model]. Here is a model showing the reg¬ 
ular Welin davits. Now, it is immaterial how soon the people get 
into the boat; all they have to do is to turn the cranks [indicating]. 
The boat rises automatically on account of the compensation of the 
boat falls until you have passed the center of the quadrant. Now, 
you can see what a tremendous leverage this gives you [indicating 
with model]. Now, the boat is swung out, and of course with the 
regular davits we generally use the rope falls, and all you have to 
have is the same men that turn the cranks come right over here and 
get on the other boat. What we claim particularly for these davits, 
and what is really one of the greatest matters of importance so far 
as the matter of boat launching is concerned, is that you have a 
positive control of the movements of the boat. You see the angle 
of this screw is a little less than the angle of this boat [indicating], 
and consequently the davit is locked when you let go of the crank. 
The control is positive. Of course if the ship is rolling the boat may 
swing a little, but the davits will not swing, they will not take charge, 
and you will not have to have a lot of men to watch the guys. 

There is another feature of importance, and that is the differing 
conditions that your ship may get into. For instance, suppose a 
collision. After a collision, invariably the ship gets a list on it, and 
that has been one of the great drawbacks of the old round-bar davits, 
in that you could not launch the boats on more than one side, and 
every sailor and every architect recognizes that and understands it 
that that is one of the great drawbacks. Consequently, your boat 
capacity is immediately reduced one-half. You have only the boats 
on one side that can be launched. But with this arrangement you 
have here a leverage and here this much clearance [indicating with 
model], and it does not matter how much list you have. Of course, 
if you have an unreasonable list that would require very long arms, 
but you see I give this model a pretty good list [indicating], and if 
you get this boat out here all you have to do is to take a couple of 
oars and put them here [indicating] and lower away, and the boat 
will clear. 


25486—10- 4 



50 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Of course, in the case of this model the arms are short, much shorter 
in proportion than the actual davits, because I do not want them any 
longer than necessary, on account of convenience in carrying the 
model about in a case. Then, on the lower side, it is easy to swing 
the boats out there. All you have to do is to let go. But the diffi¬ 
culty is that generally the boat is too far from the ship, and if you 
want to get some of the people in before you lower away, you have to 
have a stepladder, or something, and that takes time and is com¬ 
plicated; but with this gear we simply turn the boat out so far 
[indicating], and no farther. You can stop it at any desired point. 
There is nothing to get out of order, the device is so simple; and there 
is nothing to forget. That is one of the reasons that I hesitate in 
really recommending even our lowering device, although it is simpler 
than anybody else’s, until we have had time to experiment a little 
bit more with our lowering device. Now, it has taken a great deal 
of time to perfect this to this point, and it will take time with any 
patent, particularly with such complicated devices as we have here; 
and you must bear in mind that on the ship you have the salt air and 
the salt water to contend with, and you have to have a complicated 
machine, and you have to have bronze ropes and bronze bushings and 
bearings, and most of the metal work has to be bronze, because other¬ 
wise it will rust or corrode, and that makes it all much more expensive. 

The Chairman. How much deck space does your device take ? 

Mr. Lundin. That is one of the advantages of our device, that it 
saves deck space. Those chock fittings are removable, and you can 
shift them [indicating], so that when you are underway you can 
chock the boat half outboard, and there, you see, you have half of 
the width of the davit. If you gentlemen would like to study any 
further about this, I would be pleased to leave it. 

Mr. Nickerson. The davits we have now stand nearer together 
than this, and we save from 6 to 8 feet of room in the length, fore and 
aft. If we should put this on our ships we would take up that 
length, and that with our 12 boats would make 25 or 30 feet extra 
more than we take up now. 

Mr. Lundin (exhibiting cuts in book). There you see you save the 
longitudinal deck space by using those frames, as we call them. 

The Chairman. Have you testified to everything you would like 
to testify to ? 

Mr. Lundin. I would like to mention one particular thing, and 
that is about those wire falls. If wire falls have to be used, which I 
do not recommend personally, because you ought to be able to cut 
them at any time, which you can not do with wire falls, they should 
be made of what you call durable wire. 

The Chairman*. Is that fireproof ? 

Mr. Lundin. No; it is not fireproof. The cable is laid in with 
tarred hemp in order to preserve the wire, and at the same time make 
it flexible and easy to handle; but that is not fireproof. That tarred 
hemp would be likely to catch fire. That would mean that it would 
require a bar steel wire or a bronze wire. 

Now, there is not only the matter of getting the boats out over the 
side of a vessel but we have to consider the saving of life from other 
vessels. For instance, suppose I meet a disabled or sinking ship and 
all their boats are gone and I have to send out my own boats to pick 
up the crew or passengers from that ship, and when I come alongside 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


51 


of my own ship there may be a tremendous sea running. No hand 
gear will handle those boats in a rough sea. Something is apt to 
break; either the blocks or the falls or the straps in the boats are 
going to break loose. 

I really do not see the merit of having fireproof falls. Why should 
not you, then, have even a fireproof boat or a fireproof deck. Some¬ 
times it is very true that the falls may catch fire from cinders from 
the smokestack. 1 have experienced that; but that danger is not 
very serious, and if the matter is considered and brought to the atten¬ 
tion of the men, every man on board the ship will at least do the best 
he can for his own sake to see that they have good falls, and I do not 
think that matter will be serious. 

Mr. Goulden. The idea in including that was that there was just 
that danger you speak of. 

Mr. Lundin. Well, I know there is that, but it is a trifle; and to 
avoid one danger you are likely to put yourself in another danger at 
the same time. 

Mr. Goulden. Objection has been made by some of these gentle¬ 
men to the use of the various devices on the Great Lakes where there 
is so much ice and snow that they say the apparatus would be frozen 
and clogged up. 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. 

Mr. Goulden. Is not that objection also applicable to your device ? 

Mr. Lundin. Some people made the objection that these racks 
would freeze up, but we have overcome that objection. Take, for 
instance, the boats of the Allen Line, the Virginian and the Victorian , 
about three years ago we installed our davits on them, and we told 
them if they could not manage our davits on account of ice, we could 
take the davits back. You know, those ships go right up the St. 
Lawrence River, and they run the year around. They have never 
asked us to take the davits back, and instead of that they have speci¬ 
fied them for every ship they have built since. You see, the way the 
quadrant rolls on the rack, it cracks the ice just like a nutcracker. I 
do not care what kind of davits you have, all kinds of davits will freeze 
up. Besides, here you have everything inboard, whereas with other 
davits you have to put them outboard, and you can not get out to 
crack the ice' off; and there is always weight enough to prevent them 
from freezing up when you have a qompact apparatus like this. 

Mr. Goulden. Your contention, then, is that inexperienced men 
could raise and lower that boat; that it does not require experienced 
men; it does not require sailors ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes; I can corroborate that statement bv a passenger 
that was on a vessel that ran on shore on the coast of Norway a few 
days ago, and when he arrived in the United States on another ship 
he told me that he was a naval architect, and yet as a naval architect 
our davits had never appealed to him very much, and he watched 
their operation, and when they ran ashore they-had two quarter boats, 
and they sent the sailors out to take soundings, and in the meantime 
the ship was sinking very quickly, and they had to call the cooks and 
firemen to get out the boats that were on our davits, and these cooks 
and firemen got the boats in the water long ahead of the others, with 
the experienced men. Of course with the ordinary davits with that 
lowering device it requires two sailors to lower the boat; but with the 
* drum gear that we are now equipping the Alabama with- 



52 PROTECTION OE LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Goulden. Any ordinary person could lower it ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goulden. Anybody with ordinary intelligence ? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. All you have to do is to get hold of that lever 
and you work it this way [indicating], and the two ends will lower 
immediately. Of course that is the fall from this davit [indicating 
on model], and that carries across to that drum, so that that is posi¬ 
tive. That is all I care to say. 

Mr. Goulden. If any of the gentlemen present wish to ask ques¬ 
tions, I think now is the time—I mean any of our friends who are not 
members of the committee. Mr. Duff, you are prolific in questions; 
have you no questions to ask the gentleman who is now just about 
retiring ? 

Mr. Duff. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I wanted to say was that 
I had at first feared this bill would create a monopoly, and, irrespective 
of any objections steamship owners might have to complying with 
these requirements, or any requirements, for their own reasons, I 
thought it well to look into the monopolistic features, and I can say 
that from my investigation I am satisfied that there is more than one 
device that would meet the requirements of the bill. 

Mr. Goulden. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. A. W. WILIS, OF TORONTO, CANADA. 

Mr. Wills. I represent the Martin davit, and I spoke the other 
day at the last hearing on this bill, and at that time it was rather 
pointedly put that it looked as though it was going to be a monopoly; 
but in my opening remarks the other day I said that I did not think 
the bill was stringent enough; that I thought we had the best device, 
and the most up to date, on the market, but that there were a num¬ 
ber of others that would meet the requirements of this bill. 

Now, of course, I am not here to criticise the Welin nor any other. 
I notice that the representatives of ocean-going steamship companies 
here present seem to admit that it would be all right to make this 
bill effective on the lake and river lines, and the lake and river lines 
think that such a bill should be effective for ocean vessels. It seems 
to me that human life is as well worth saving on inland waters as at 
sea, and although there have been a number of instances where some 
of these steamship lines have not had an accident for a long time 
(one gentleman said in ten years they had not had an accident), that 
is not the point. The point is that there have been so many acci¬ 
dents with the old davits that it should be made compulsory to use 
the latest safety davits. There was an accident only a few weeks 
ago in New York Harbor, and that was one place where the steam¬ 
boat people claim this bill should not be made effective; yet it was 
only two or three weeks ago that one of the boats that has been 
used for taking immigrants from Ellis Island foundered there in a 
few minutes. She had been very recently inspected, too. It is to 
cover such boats as that that this bill should be passed. 

Mr. Sturgiss. This law does not cover a case like that. 

Mr. Wills. I think it should cover all steamships plying in waters 
where human life is at risk. Where lifeboats are required by law 
there should be appliances used which will insure the proper launch¬ 
ing of those lifeboats. Captain Lundin spoke about having 3,000 
sets of Welin davits in use. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 53 

Mr. Goulden. Were there any lives lost in that accident you 
spoke of ? 

Mr. Wills. No, sir; I do not think so. There were no passengers 
on board at the time, but there was a likelihood of it. The disaster 
of the General Slocum was there in those waters. 

Mr. Moran. The General Slocum was going along at the rate of 9 
knots an hour; that was brought out on the trial. Would it be safe, 
in your judgment, to fill your boat with people and lower it with 
the steamer going along at that speed ? 

Mr. Wills. It would be safer than the old style would. It would 
make for safety. 

Mr. Moran. Would it be safe? 

Mr. Wills. Yes; I believe it would be safe. 

Mr. Goulden. Proceed. 

Mr. Wills. Captain Lundin, I was going to ask you about the 
demand you have for your Welin davits, without legislation. You 
stated there were 3,000 sets of your davits in use, and I believe there 
are. That does not mean 3,000 in the United States, does it? 

Mr. Lundin. No. 

Mr. Wills. It means all over? 

Mr. Lundin. Yes. 

Mr. Wills. What has been your experience in getting steamboat 
people to take it up without compulsory legislation? I think from 
what my experience has been, that it is most difficult. They admit 
that it is a good thing, but they say, “Let the other fellow do it.” 
They do not want to do it. 1 would like to know what Captain 
Lundin’s experience has been in that respect. 

Mr. Lundin. Our experience has been that ever since we were 
able to convince naval architects and marine engineers and steamship 
people about the merits of our davits, we have received so many orders 
that we have been too busy to follow up the matter, really. We find 
we receive a number of inquiries from shipyards in the country, and 
particularly so in Europe, where they build more ships. Unfor¬ 
tunately they do not build so many ships here in the United States. 
The question comes up, there are some new ships going to be built, 
and they are figuring on it, and they want to put our davits on. 
Sometimes we happen to know the name of the architect that drew 
up the plans, and so forth, but generally we know nothing about it 
before we receive the inquiries. 

Mr. Wills. How many sets of davits have you supplied in the 
United States ? 

Mr. Lundin. In the United States, I could not say how many, just 
offhand. 

Mr. Wills. One hundred, do you think? 

Mr. Lundin. More than that. 

Mr. Wills., Two hundred ? 

Mr. Lundin. Three hundred, maybe. 

Mr. Wills. Has that kept you so busy that you can not keep up 
’with your orders? I think where the merits of these devices are 
recognized this will grow, but only very slowly, and many lives are 
lost in the meantime; but the point that I want to make is this, 
that where you have a spasmodic market, the cost of building 
and selling such devices is going to be a hardship on such of the 
steamboat people as are inclined to put on all safety appliances; 


54 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

but if there is a good demand, it is going to mean that these devices 
can be purchased at a moderate price, and it will be a benefit to the 
steamboat people, whereas under present conditions the steamboat 
lines which place the safety of life ahead of expense have to pay very 
high prices, and there naturally follows a hesitation in putting on these 
latest improvements. 

Mr. Goulden. Will you tell me at what you estimate the cost, per 
boat, to equip a vessel with your device, complete? 

Mr. Wills. Complete not more than $500 with any kind of a 
reasonable demand. As I have told you, I am not a practical man 
in building, but I have had quotations on it from builders and people 
who ought to know, and for the very largest size I know we can 
actually build them for less than that in quantities. This device of 
ours which you saw on the wharf here we built in Toronto, and that 
cost less* than $500 for everything. That was built one year and a 
half ago, and it has been down on the wharf here ever since. There 
has been an objection made to it by some speakers here to-day on 
the ground that the brake can not be used, being set so far back, but 
that was at its inboard position. When the device is run out ready 
for lowering, the brake is directly at the gunwhale of the vessel, so 
that you can easily see what you are doing. Captain Lundin has 
said that there are alwaj^s improvements made in all such devices 
from time to time, and we have improved ours, as a matter of fact, 
since building the one on the dock. I do not think for a minute that 
Captain Lundin’s Welin davit in the beginning looked anything 
like it does now; there is a big difference in it, and I think ours will 
be the same way; and I think there will be not only a Welin davit 
and a Martin davit and a Schmitt, but there will be a Jones and a 
Brown and a Green. 

The Chairman. If they find a market for it. 

Mr. Wills. Yes; if they find a market for it. 

Mr. Nickerson. Do you not think it would be fair for you to take 
the chance that other builders have taken, and get your machine 
on the market before coming to this Congress for a law to compel 
people to use it; take your chances on the market and demonstrate 
that you have got what you claim you have ? 

Mr. Wills. When I see a bill going to pass, I want to take advan¬ 
tage of it and have my say the same as you gentlemen, here. You 
are all opposed to the bill, but I do not think now you are willing to 
give Mr. Lundin and myself credit enough for the merit of our 
devices, considering that they have been both approved by the 
board of supervising inspectors. 

Mr. Nickerson. I think when a man has a device, it is fair for 
him, before he tries to sell something to somebody, to prove that he 
has got it. 

Mr. Wills. Captain Lundin told us that he sold only 300 of them 
in six years. 

Mr. Nickerson. Then, on that record, you come to Congress to 
compel everybody to buy your device. 

Mr. Lundin. I want to correct that. It is only three years since 
we started up business. 

Mr. Wills. It is a very moderate number of davits. 

Mr. Simmons. How many sets of your device have you in use? 

Mr. Wills. We have none. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 55 

Mr. Simmons. You have not proved the practicability of it very 
much, have you ? 

Mr. Wills. We have proved it by your board of inspectors, and 
these gentlemen approved of it officially; and they are not going to 
approve of anything that will not work under actual conditions, 
because they would be criticised by the steamboat people. They 
dare not do it. 

Mr. Nickerson. They have approved a great many machines- 

Mr. Wills. However, as I say, there are so many devices, we have 
got to take our chances on an open market when there is legislation. 
There is no market for it without legislation, and loss of life is the 
result. 

Mr. Simmons. Why would there not be a market for it? 

Mr. Wills. Because it is too expensive for selling and building in 
small quantities. Captain Lundin has pretty high prices. I believe 
he could build and supply them for less, if he could sell more of them. 

Mr. Simmons. Do you mean to say that none of the shipping inter¬ 
ests would take it unless they were compelled to ? 

Mr. Wills. I tell you, it takes a long time and a tremendous ex¬ 
pense to go and tell people about it. You go to them, and they may 
be convinced, but they “consider” it. It is the same way that it is 
with the fire escape. Everybody will admit that a fire escape is a 
splendid thing, but they will not put it on their buildings until they 
have to. 

The Chairman. Yes; take it in this District, the fire escapes were 
forced on them. Take it in Massachusetts, the fire escapes were 
forced on them everywhere where they are used. 

Mr. Simmons. I think that is right. 

Mr. Wills. I do not want to antagonize the steamship interests; 
they are our customers, and we want them to be with us. I believe 
our device can be built cheaper than the old one, with a good demand 
when we get through, taking into account the expense of renewing 
the ropes. 

The Chairman. Your wire rope on the machine you have on the 
dock here, has that been renewed ? 

Mr. Wills. That was put on there in January, 1909, and it has 
been on the dock ever since, with no care, and I defy anybody to 
find any rust or corrosion on it the size of a pin point. 

The Chairman. Your machinery lias been there how long? 

Mr. Wills. Ever since January, 1909, when it was inspected and 
approved by the supervising inspectors, and it has never had any 
attention whatever. That device had not even been operated since 
until last Tuesday, the day it was shown to the committee, and it 
worked the first time without any stoppage or trouble whatever. 

Mr. Goulden. You said your apparatus was inspected. By 
whom was it inspected ? 

Mr. Wills. By the board of supervising inspectors. 

Mr. Goulden. Was it passed then? 

Mr. Wills. At that time there was a board of ten, and instead of 
three of them going down there, the three that usually inspect 
appliances, they were so interested in our device that the whole board 
came down, and then unanimously approved it. 

The Chairman. And the inspector-general approved it? 



56 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Mr. Wills. Yes; and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 
Of course, I am not here to speak of the merits of my device. I 
think our device is the best one made, and Captain Lundin thinks 
that his is; and I think there are others, too, yet we are quite willing 
to leave it to the test of competition to secure our share of the busi¬ 
ness; but without legislation our device will not be on the market, 
and the traveling public will be without this protection. 

Mr. Fairchild. Have any of the large trans-Atlantic liners any 
of these devices ? 

Mr. Wills. There are a number of the Welin and there are, I think, 
a number of the Schmitt. 

Mr. Lundin. Only on two boats. 

Mr. Fairchild. Are these used on any of the new boats ? 

Mr. Wills. They are not generally used. 

Mr. Fairchild. Would it not be reasonable to think that these 
boats that are provided with every device to make travel safe would 
be equipped with these devices if they were better for life-saving 
purposes than the old ones? 

Mr. Wills. I will tell you my experience. The biggest lines say, 
“Go and get some other line to do it.’ 7 They say, “We can not afford 
to have our decks torn up to try it.” There is one big vessel that is 
equipped with the Welin davit, and the captain of that boat says it is 
a fine device, and yet they have not equipped any more of their vessels 
with it. The people, I believe, look on it that so far there has been 
no saving in expense; it has been an expense. Captain Lundin tells 
us this morning that he is putting on some wire-drum attachment. 
There is an argument from the economic standpoint in that which 
will appeal to them no doubt in time; but so far he has come to them 
with this device, which did nothing except save human life, and he 
has sold only 300 in three years. 

Mr. Goulden. Do you mean to say that the saving of human life 
does not appeal to our steamship people ? 

Mr. Wills. No, sir; not at all; not by any means; but I think they 
want to see it proved up too much, and life is too short. I believe 
that if this amendment was put in force for new construction it 
would not be so long, as would otherwise be the Case, before many of 
the old boats would want to be equipped with it; but without this 
legislation the real advantage of these appliances will be lost to the 
traveling public, as the steamship owners who do not keep their 
equipment up to the mark unless compelled to do so will never put 
on these safety appliances unless it is compulsory. I was not in 
favor of this amendment at first; but start the business right and give 
it a chance to prove itself out, and in the course of two or three years 
if this is not wise legislation it will be apparent. 

Mr. Goulden. You think, then, that this amendment is a good 
thing ? 

Mr. Wills. It is a fair proposition, to make it fair to the steamship 
people and the people who have the devices. 

Mr. Goulden. Have you a model here? 

Mr. Wills. No, sir. A number of these gentlemen saw the device 
down at the wharf, which is not our latest device. Our latest is an 
improvement on that. I do not know that I have any more remarks. 

Mr. Nickerson. I do not think the gentleman has answered my 
question wherein I asked him why he is not willing to take his chances 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 57 

in the market the same as other people. He comes here, probably, 
with a corporation incorporated- 

The Chairman. He takes his chances just the same as anybody 
else. If we pass a law to compel this improvement, he takes his 
chances. 

Mr. Nickerson. Just so. 

The Chairman. Congress has a right to pass a law, even though 
every owner of a vessel should be opposed to it. Congress is made to 
create laws and it has the right to create a law. 

Mr. Nickerson. I understand that, Mr. Chairman; but is it fair to 
pass a law- 

The Chairman. I do not know. That is for us to determine. You 
have put all your arguments against it, and you have a right to; but 
at the same "time, you are not the maker of laws, you must bear in 
mind, and none of the lines are makers of laws. We make the laws. 

Mr. Nickerson. Yes. 

The Chairman. And it is not for you to determine. You can 
make your argument against a proposed law, but you are not to say 
that you think a law is necessary or unnecessary; that is going beyond 
your province. You have a right on your own steamer to say what 
you please. 

Mr. Nickerson. That is what I am going to say. 

The Chairman. But here, this committee is created by Congress 
to hear propositions that are brought before us. 

Mr. Nickerson. I do not dispute that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Well, now, this bill was regularly introduced by 
Mr. Goulden, and he had a right to introduce it; and I introduce a 
great many bills. 

Mr. Nickerson. We have not heard of any device that will accom¬ 
plish what is required, except the Martin. We understand there 
are elaborate patents out, but they are not practicable. Now, if 
that is the case, here is one man who has got a monopoly. 

The Chairman. Well, he has not. He distinctly says he has not, 
and Mr. Lundin says he has not. 

Mr. Nickerson. All his machines become obsolete just as soon 
as you make this law. 

The Chairman. That is your judgment, and you must bear in mind 
that this committee is having these hearings to get information, and- 
we are going to report back to Congress whether we report to make 
this proposition a law or not. 

Mr. Nickerson. That is all right; but I say this creates a monopoly, 
and it is not fair to do so. 

The Chairman. That is merely your opinion. 

Mr. Wills. One gentleman said that monopoly was his fear, but 
so far as I am concerned I do not think there is ever going to be any 
monopoly. There are going to be scores of these devices if there is 
legislation to encourage building of devices, and I think it is going to 
result in benefit to the art of boat launching and the saving of human 
life. 

The Chairman. If you would have to take off all your apparatus 
to-morrow, I would agree that it is an arbitrary proposition. But 
even though you think it is wrong, if it is right in the judgment of 
the committee who have it under consideration and right in the judg¬ 
ment of the Congress who make the laws, we have the right to make 




58 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


a law. It is for us to consider and to get information about it and to 
determine for ourselves from our status, looking at it on the broader 
line. 

My own experience in life, and I have lived quite a number of years, 
is that if I took the narrow line that frequently comes to me when I 
have hearings before this committee, we should be living in the times 
of the Dark Ages. But there is daylight coming all the time, and we 
get improvement and we get new ideas and improved ideas, and we 
see fit to adopt them, and in this case we may not adopt this-—I do not 
know anything about how the committee feels about it—but we have 
a right to find out about it and a right to obtain information about it 
and draw our own conclusions, even though those conclusions would 
not agree with those of the gentlemen who come here opposing the bill. 

Mr. Goulden. I want to say right in this connection, inasmuch as 
my friend Captain Nickerson has made a statement that it would 
create a monopoly, that before introducing the bill, I investigated 
and made up my mind that at least three companies could get in 
under this law, the Welin and the Schmitt and the Martin, and I have 
no doubt there are many others. I only make that statement in 
justice to myself as well as in justice to Captain Nickerson. 

Mr. Simmons. I think it would be very well that the members may 
have full information about all these devices that would come under 
this bill. I am never in favor of a monopoly; I am in favor of the 
keenest competition, to get the best results. 

Mr. Moran. What space would your apparatus require, Mr. 

Mr. Wills. This apparatus requires, with our segment track, 
which is one of our latest improvements, not as much as the width of 
the lifeboat itself. 

Mr. Moran. Then you only require about three feet of space from 
the outer rail of the boat, inboard ? 

Mr. Wills. Precisely. 

Mr. Moran. Then you work your apparatus from both ends ? 

Mr. Wills. No; from one end. 

Mr. Moran. Take the matter of installing this on the present 
passenger steamers, take our river steamers, for instance, and their 
boat decks are constructed of pieces 4 by 4, and they have carlins 3 
by 3 and 4 by 4 carlins. How much additional strength will that 
deck require to put that apparatus on there and lower a boat, with an 
average weight of 150 pounds to each person and the average weight 
of the boat 1,100 pounds? 

Mr. Wills. That is a technical point. Of course, if you have boats 
that will not stand the weight you can have them strengthened. Here 
is the question of launching a lifeboat safely, and your steamers can 
be strengthened. I have seen them strengthened where the Welin 
davits were used, and that has been very satisfactory. The people we 
have shown our device to have never brought that up as any objection. 

Mr. Moran. Yes; but that is a feature that the steamboat interests 
will have to contend with. You will admit that. Take it on the 
Atlantic coast between Chesapeake Bay and Cape Anne, I suppose 
we have to-day 15,000 steamers. 

Mr. Beer. May I ask the indulgence of the committee for a few 
minutes? A number of technical questions have been asked here 
to-day, and we have here Mr. Lewkowicz, who is an engineer of repute 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


59 


and who has made this matter a study. I would like to hear his 
replies to some of the technical questions that have been asked, and 
may I ask the indulgence of yourself and the committee, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, to call upon him ? 

The Chairman. Now, or later? 

Mr. Beer. Just as you like; either now or later. 

The Chairman. Well, we will hear him now. 

STATEMENT OF MR. A. JOSEPH LEWKOWICZ. 

Mr. Lewkowicz. Mr. Moran was asking something in regard to the 
matter of reinforcing decks necessary for supporting an apparatus of 
this kind. The strain is somewhat different, but it is mostly a matter 
of putting in stanchions. The deck would have to be strengthened 
to the extent of putting in possibly a stanchion under the davit, and 
partners between the carlins at the back end of the segment track, 
and the expense of that would not be any greater than it would be in 
fitting a vessel with the round-bar davits. The strain, of course, is 
different. The weight does not come on the upper deck there, but 
there is a side pull that has to be taken care of. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further in that matter? 

Mr. Moran. No; proceed. 

Mr. Lewkowicz. I thought I was just to answer questions. 

Mr. Moran. You spoke of the side strain. 

Mr. Lewkowicz. The side strain or pull is taken off in this case. 
There will be none. It would be a direct downward pull at the end 
where the stanchions are, and at the other end an upward pull. 

Mr. Moran. That is on the Welin davit ? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. On the Welin, or most apparatus like the Welin, 
that will probably come into use. 

Mr. Goulden. Are you familiar with the Schmitt device ? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. To a certain extent. 

Mr. Goulden. That is the only one I have not seen. Will you tell 
us about it ? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. I only know T about it from reference to literature. 
I have a paper that shows an illustration of it. 

Mr. Fairchild. You have not seen it in practical operation? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. I have not seen it in operation, but apparently it 
works similarly to the one at the dock down here. 

Mr. Fairchild. Have you seen it, other than the one at the dock 
here ? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. Only that. That and the Welin are the ones I 
have seen here. I do not think any of the Schmitt davits are on this 
side of the ocean. They are all on the other side. 

Mr. Fairchild. Are there many vessels equipped with it over 
there, and how does it work? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. It works very similarly to the Welin, I think. 
It looks like a Welin davit with an additional frame for pulling it in 
and letting it out. 

Mr. Lundin. It has a quadrant like ours, but it has no rack, and 
the quadrant is secured by two wires at each end, and then the idea 
is to lower the boat by gravitation. The quadrant runs like this 
[indicating], and then when it goes down the boat lowers itself by 
gravitation, whereas our is controlled by the screw. 


60 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Goulden. Do you regard it as a good, safe device? Has it 
worked practically ? 

Mr. Lundin. I would prefer not to say anything about any other 
device. 

Mr. Goulden. I thought you might just tell us whether it was 
a good thing so far as it went. 

Mr. Wills. You did not have that same hesitation about speaking 
of mine. 

Mr. Lewkowicz. There were several points brought up that I made 
notes about. One thing that came to my mind was the fact that the 
equipment of vessels with the Welin boat apparatus proves that the 
steamship companies recognize the necessity for apparatus; but those 
who see the necessity for it and are public-spirited enough to adopt it 
and use it are very few and far between, and they are possibly paying a 
little more—although I doubt it—than the other steamship com¬ 
panies are; but they have the public spirit and the progressive spirit 
and they go ahead and the others do not. But if there is any advan¬ 
tage in the cost in the old style against the new, the progressive people 
are paying the difference. 

Then, in the matter of the necessity of compulsory legislation, I 
have in mind the adoption of the air brake on freight cars in the United 
States. There was a big hue and cry, but legislation was passed, and 
there was a certain number of years given for the equipping of the 
cars with the air brake, and at the expiration of that time the air¬ 
brake companies could not supply sufficient air brakes to fulfill the 
law and the time had to be extended. Since that time I do not think 
you could pass a law legislating the air brakes off of those freight cars. 
It economizes time and the service is benefited all through. I think 
the same thing will be true in regard to this. I think this will prove 
an improvement in the art of boat launching; and as Mr. Lundin says, 
there are 2,500 or more patents, some of them probably with con¬ 
siderable merit, which are lying dead for the want of a little legislative 
encouragement like this. The legislative points discussed here, of 
course, I do not feel that I am competent to speak on, but I think it 
is an excellent thing from an engineering standpoint. 

Now, if anybody else would like to ask a few questions of a technical 
nature, I will answer them to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Moran. I will ask you the question that I spoke on before: 
Do you think this apparatus in particular, or any other apparatus, 
is adapted to the smaller class of boats ? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. I hardly think it is necessary on very small boats. 
It is not, from my point of view. 

Mr. Goulden. Do you think it is necessary on tug boats? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. I hardly think so. 

Mr. Moran. And the same thing applies to the small fishermen 
going out of New York Harbor, where they trail a boat or two boats 
behind them? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. Where they are allowed now to trail a lifeboat, 
I think they should still be allowed to do so. I think it was never 
intended for that. 

Mr. Moran. The law covers that class of boats. 

Mr. Lewkowicz. Then you are not confined to the law to-day. 

Mr. Moran. These fishing boats are compelled to carry a certain 
number of lifeboats, and the local inspectors inspecting them give 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 61 

them the privilege of carrying that boat capacity in the way that is 
most suitable and adapted to their class of boats. 

Mr. Goulden. It is your judgment that the adoption of some 
such device as this, as proposed by this law, would be a benefit in the 
saving of human life ? 

Mr. Lewkowicz. 1 do not know about it at all, but the tendency 
on all large steamships is toward mechanically controlled contriv¬ 
ances. 

Mr. Beer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire whether there 
will be an opportunity for the association which is responsible for 
this outbreak to make a statement in rebuttal, at some future date, 
or must we make it now ? 

1 he Chairman. They have asked me to grant a further hearing to 
the other side. 

Mr. Beer. Then, if it please your honorable committee, the asso¬ 
ciation would like to appear to be heard at that hearing. 

The Chairman. When would you like to have the hearing? 

Mr. Beer. Whenever the hearing is arranged for we would like to 
know. 

The Chairman. You file whatever statement you want to. I think 
we have given all the time we can to this, if we are going to do any¬ 
thing with this legislation at this session. If you have any proposi¬ 
tion you want to submit, you can submit it as well in writing as you 
can orally before the committee. 

Mr. Goulden. And we will withhold the publication of this last 
hearing for how many days ? 

The Chairman. Say one week, so that everyone will have an 
opportunity to file what they desire. 

Mr. Goulden. There seems to be a good deal of divergence of 
opinion as to the cost of this apparatus, and that would be one thing 
that would influence me. I had an impression that we could equip 
these boats for $500 apiece, but we have now got up to $900. I 
would make this suggestion, that Mr. Wills and Captain Lundin, with 
Mr. Duff, who represents the steamboat interests, get together, if they 
can, and let us have some sort of information as to about what it 
would cost. I think, before we undertake to make any law, we 
ought to know what effect it is going to have on the steamboat inter¬ 
ests, both in effect as well as in cost; and therefore I suggest, if they 
would kindly undertake to do so, that they consult together and 
let us have their information. Mr. Duff and Captain Lundin and 
Mr. Wills are here, and if there is any representative of the Schmitt 
interests, I should like to include him. 

Mr. Duff. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor between now and next 
Thursday, in cooperation with these gentlemen, to get that informa¬ 
tion. Of course, it may take that time to get reliable information. 

Mr. Goulden. What we want is full information. I have no axe 
to grind in this matter. 

The Chairman. There are over 5,000 petitions lying here asking 
for this legislation. 

Mr. Lundin. I will be pleased to make a statement of the cost of 
our device on the new ships as well as the others. So far as the other 
devices are concerned, I could not say anything. 

Mr. Duff. This will have to be a sort of an average. 


62 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Fairchild. Do you think the matter of petitions, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, should have any weight with this committee ? I have received 
a number of petitions from my district, and I do not suppose one in 
ten of those men who signed those petitions ever saw the sea in the 
world. Now, it seems to me it is the duty of the committee to judge 
for itself, and they should not give much weight to the prayer of a 
man who does not know what he is praying about or to whom he is 
praying. I want to be fair in this matter, and I am certainly not 
acting in the interests of anybody, but when it comes to sending a 
lot of petitions from away back in New York State about things that 
those people know nothing about, it seems to me those petitions 
should not have much weight with the committee. 

The Chairman. Of course you may take them with any weight 
you choose. I want to state that they are here. 

Mr. Fairchild. I have crossed the ocean many times, and I am 
very much interested in this matter simply because I believe it is 
proven to me that this device is a practical, feasible device to put 
in operation, and that is exactly why I am standing here and watching 
and studying, not in the interest of anyone, but simply to do my 
duty as a member of the committee. 

The Chairman. My colleague always does his duty, and I am sure 
we appreciate his sitting here and getting all the information he can. 
If the bill is a good one, we want his cooperation. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM C. BEER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 
YONKERS, N. Y. 

Mr. Beer. My statements, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 
committee, are mostly in rebuttal, and without any desire to criticise. 
I wish first and in a preliminary way to call your attention to the 
statement of Captain Luckhurst before this committee at the hearing 
on April 14, 1910. I am sorry he is not here now. On page 17 of 
this hearing he states that “manila rope will not burn.” Four lines 
from the bottom, he states “We have never lost a life, and never will, 
with this present gear.” Comment is unnecessary. 

It is perhaps my misfortune to appear here on behalf of an asso¬ 
ciation whose friends and relatives, could they appear in flesh and 
blood here, would throng these halls. But they are not here. Their 
voices—different from the voices of these steamship owners you have 
heard here to-day—are hushed into eternal silence. 

You gentlemen are the representatives of the American people. 
You are neither the representatives of persons having devices to sell, 
nor of the steamboat owners, and I know it is the intention of this 
committee, as Mr. Fairchild says, to get at the exact right thing to 
do; and yet, being officials of tbe United States Government, as you 
are, or representatives, you must listen to testimony like this. You 
have heard to-day the report, or the opinion, of Captain Nickerson, 
who I take it has something to do with the Fall River Line. I hold 
in my hand the Report of the Life-Saving Service for 1907, and, very 
hurriedly, it is only necessary for me to refer to the loss of the steamer 
Larchmont, February 11 , 1907, at Block Island, almost within sight, 
Mr. Chairman, of your own congressional district. The steamer 
Larchmont belonged to the Joy Line. The Joy Line is now a part, 
I believe, of the New England Navigation Company. I will ask 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


63 


jour permission to insert in the record, if I may, the following account 
of the Larchmont disaster, taken from this report, at pages 25, 26, 
and 27: 


The “Larchmont” Disaster, February 11, 1907. 

The marine casualty known as the Larchmont disaster, in which the passenger 
steamer Larchmont was sunk on the night of February 11, 1907, in Block Island Sound, 
in collision with the schooner Harry P. Knowlton , occurred outside the field of opera¬ 
tions of the Life-Saving Service. The case was not, therefore, subject to official inves¬ 
tigation by this bureau under the requirements of the act of June 18, 1878. The serv¬ 
ices of the life-saving crews on Block Island (upon which upward of 100 of the victims 
of the catastrophe drifted ashore aboard the Larchmont's boats and life rafts) in caring 
for those who were so fortunate as to get to land alive, and in recove, ing from the surf 
the bodies washed up on the island beach, are, however, considered of such signal 
merit as to call for more than incidental notice. 

The names and post-office addresses of those whose lives were saved or sacrificed 
are given in every instance possible in order to amplify and complete the record of one 
of the world’s great sea tragedies. What follows is compiled from a report made in the 
case by Capt. Herbert M. Knowles, superintendent of the third life-saving district 
(embracing the coast of Rhode Island), and from reports of the employees of the service 
under whose personal supervision the rescue and relief w r ork of the life-saving crews 
was carried on. Captain Knowles, by whose direction the reports of his subordinates 
were prepared, spared no pains to make the record of events that took place on the 
island in connection with the disaster as complete as possible and in thorough accord 
with the facts. 

The Larchmont was a Joy Line side-wheel, single-deck two-masted steamer plying 
between Providence, R. I., and New York City. She registered 1,605 tons and was 
252 feet long, with 37 feet beam. She was built in Bath, Me., in 1885. She left 
Providence on her fatal trip at 6.30 p. m. of February 11, 1907, in command of Capt. 
George W. McVey, with Robert Gay, chief engineer, and a crew of 30 or 40 men (the 
actual number is not known). The number of passengers on board is also a matter of 
doubt, but it was probably somewhat near 150. Captain McVey, who escaped with 
his life, estimated the number to have been 50 or 75, but the purser of the steamer, who 
also survived the disaster, placed the figures at from 125 to 150, and most of the ship’s 
crew who reached land alive were inclined to agree with him. While the exact number 
of fatalities will also doubtless ever remain a mystery, the magnitude of the calamity 
may be comprehended by the small number of survivors—only 17 out of a possible 200 
persons on board. 

The schooner Harry P. Knowlton was a vessel of 317 tons, hailing from Eastport, 
Me. She was commanded by Capt. Frank T. Haley and carried a crew of 7. 
When the collision occurred she was on her way from South Amboy, N. J., to Boston, 
with a cargo of soft coal. She had been ice bound at the head of Long Island Sound, 
and had gotten free early in the day of the 11th, and in order to make up for lost 
time was carrying considerable canvas. She was built for the South African trade, 
and for this reason, it is stated, was faster than the average vessel of her class. As 
the wind was blowing a gale on the night of the 11th she w r as therefore doubtless 
going along at a pretty good clip when she rammed the Larchmont. 

The weather could scarcely have been better calculated to make the impending 
collision of the most terrible consequence. The night was clear, but the temperature 
was only 2° or 3° above zero, and the wind, which swept furiously across the Sound 
from the northwest, sent the seas clear over the laboring steamer, the water freezing 
as it fell and leaving a coating of ice upon everything above deck. The two vessels 
came together about 10.45 p. m. 3£ miles south-southeast of Watch Hill light, and 
almost due west of the northernmost point of Block Island, lying 10 miles from the 
mainland. • 

While the stories of the two commanding oflBcers do not agree with regard to the 
movements of their respective vessels just before the collision occurred, the recitals 
by the survivors from both vessels as to what took place afterwards are in substantial 
accord. The Knowlton struck the steamer on the port side forward of her paddlebox, 
carrying away all the head gear of the first-named vessel back to her knightheads. 
The speed of the Larchmont, however, carried her clear of the schooner, and the latter 
fell off to leeward. Captain Haley says that he signaled the Larchmont for help, but 
o-etting no response, and finding his vessel rapidly filling, he realized that his only 
hope of safety lay in getting ashore. He therefore hauled up to northward for the 
nearest land, but his vessel was so badly injured that the crew had to take to the ship’s 
yawl while still a mile and a half off the beach and about the same distance from the 


64 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Quonochontaug life-saving station. The schooner and her small boat were both discov¬ 
ered offshore about 1.30 a. m. by Surfman Charles G. Eldridge, of the station named, 
while making the west patrol. He burned a Coston signal, and when the men in the 
boat struck the beach he assisted them to land. They were taken to the station, where 
they were cared for three days. They informed the station keeper of the collision, 
but it appears that they were in ignorance of its tragic outcome, having expressed to 
the keeper the opinion that the steamer had gone on her way. The seriousness, of 
the disaster was not known on the land until the forenoon of the 12th, when the living 
and dead began to drift ashore on Block Island. After the schooner was abandoned 
it continued to drift shoreward, and took bottom on the beach about three-fourths of 
a mile west of the Quonochontaug station, becoming a total loss. 

Following the collision, the Larchmont continued ahead for a short distance with all 
her lights extinguished by the shock, the water pouring in through the gaping hole 
in her side, and the steam from the pipes broken asunder by the schooner’s prow 
filling her superstructure. Many of those on board had probably retired, as it seems 
was customary for persons taking passage on this boat to do after passing Beaver Tail, 
where the ocean swell is first encountered. Such as had done so were of course totally 
unprepared to face the awful situation with the presence of mind necessary to make 
the most of it, and in the short twelve minutes that ensued before the vessel went 
down had no chance, in the darkness, choking steam, and general confusion, to get 
to that part of the steamer where the crew were trying to lower the boats and life 
rafts. The work of getting the boats and rafts over the side and safely afloat was an 
almost impossible undertaking owing to the terrific onslaughts of the seas, the fierce¬ 
ness of the gale, and the crowding of the terrified passengers. While the operation 
was going on a number of the passengers jumped, or fell, overboard in their eagerness 
to leave the ship, and were of course drowned. At least half of those on the vessel 
succeeded, however, in getting safely away, and there is little doubt that, but for the 
rigorous weather, the larger part of them would finally have reached land by their 
own efforts with little discomfort, or been picked up by passing vessels. 

I hold in my hand the annual report of the Supervising Inspector- 
General for the fiscal ^ear ending June 30, 1909. I submit this to 
show why our association desires this life-saving device made com¬ 
pulsory. Here, after all these years that have passed since the 
Slocum disaster, in the year 1908-9 it was found necessary by the 
inspectors to reject 758 block cork life-preservers. On page 48 I 
find an item, “Lives saved by means of life-saving appliances required 
by law,” and under the heading “Total in 1908,” we have 245, and 
the total in 1907 was 521. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Congress¬ 
man Fairchild has brought up a point which is very interesting to me, 
personally. He states that persons who are inland can not, probably, 
be interested or know much about these things. 

Mr. Fairchild. I beg your pardon, I do not pretend to say that 
they can not be interested. I say that it is perfectly proper for them 
to be interested. I say they can not know the practical side of this 
proposition, and that it is for us to analyze the proposition carefully 
from the practical side, and be sure of our standpoint, regardless of all 
petitions that come to us. 

Mr. Beer. Mr. Chairman, the principal reason why I am here 
to-day is as follows: I am an attorney of the New York Life Insurance 
Company, of New York, among other clients. On November 7, 1900, 
the steamer Islander, bound from Nome, Alaska, to Seattle and Ta¬ 
coma, went down in Stevens Passage, and one of my very best 
friends, our northwestern agent, was on that vessel. The property 
of the New York Life Insurance Company, which lies at the bottom 
of Stevens Passage to-day, is in gold dust taken for premiums. That 
is of no consequence whatever. I merely mention it to show you 
how my attention was attracted to this. The steamship Islander 
was a well-equipped, rebuilt ocean stea*mer, fitted out with electric 
lights and up to date in all respects. At about 2 o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing she collided with an iceberg. Every light in the steamship was 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 65 

immediately extinguished. The only deck light on the steamer was 
one lantern, supposed to have been on the bridge. In fourteen 
minutes after the collision with the iceberg that steamer went to the 
bottom. The captain went down with her—brave man that he was— 
Captain Ross. The men did their very best to save the lives of the 
women and children. It was absolutely dark. 

Now, you have heard much to-day of the disadvantage of launch¬ 
ing a boat on an even keel. Here was a practical test, Mr. Fairchild, 
of the questions you have asked several times to-day. One boat after 
another was lowered in that short space of time by that crew, who 
made the most heroic endeavors to save those people, and boat after 
boat, being lowered faster at one end than at the other, dumped its 
screaming, terrified occupants into the waters there, and they per¬ 
ished miserably alongside of that steamer. There was little or no 
sea running. The question is whether or not it is advisable to lower 
a boat on an even keel. Much has been said of a steamer down by the 
head. This steamer went down nose first, absolutely perpendicularly. 
She was certainly down by the head. She sunk in fourteen minutes 
after the collision. These boats were lowered by the manila lines 
about which you have heard so much to-day as being such good things 
in the hands of experienced seafaring men. Every boat that was 
lowered was lowered in that way. One boat from that ship got away; 
every other boat, lowered by two men who were hurried, perhaps 
panic-struck, was lowered faster at one end than the other, and one 
boat after another dumped its load into the arctic sea—because it 
was filled with floating glaciers there—and of the 100 passengers, 77 
were lost, including, I believe, the wife of the governor-general of the 
Northwest Territory. If any argument on earth could prove the 
fallacy of this statement as to men lowering in midnight darkness 
a boat from the two ends independently of each other—so dark that 
they could not see each other 6 feet away—here is the absolute 
refutation of that argument. 

I know that I have consumed nearly all of my time, but I would 
like to turn to the record of the year 1909 and read and have inserted 
in the record a few clippings taken from my scrapbook at random. 
I will not attempt to read anything more than the headings. I will 
ask leave, however, if it please your committee, to insert these state¬ 
ments in the hearing. Here is a clipping dated July 4, 1909, Victoria, 
British Columbia: “One hundred and forty-nine lives lost in burning 
ship.” This was a Jap ship off Victoria. There were two boats 
aboard the steamer, but they were rendered useless, carried away 
through clumsiness in lowering and the overeagerness of panic- 
stricken passengers. Here is another, September 7, 1909, the case 
of the Allan Line steamer Laurentian. The headline reads, “ Pas¬ 
sengers fell into sea—Twenty-five of the passengers, mostly women 
and children, were placed in the first boat, but the bow tackle col¬ 
lapsed.” How glad they would have been if both ends could have 
been lowered at the same time by a wire rope. “Several persons 
were thrown into the sea. Others were injured by the thumping of 
the small craft against the sides of the collapsing liner.” 

Here is another, dated the 26th of October, 1909. The steamer 
Hestia was wrecked in the Bay of Fundy, with the loss of at least a 
score of souls: 

Of the 40 persons who were on board the steamer when she piled up on the shoal at 
1 a. m. this morning only 6 are positively known to have been saved. 

25486—10-5 


66 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Further, it says: 

Three of the lifeboats were available and one by one they were swung from the 
deck, but while the manila tackle of one of the boats was being unfastened the small 
craft dropped from the davits into the sea and was soon beyond recovery. Then 
preparations were made to prevent a second similar mishap. Into another boat were 
placed four boys and over a dozen members of the crew. They had barely taken 
their place when the manila tackle gave way, and without warning the boat with its 
occupants was precipitated into the turbulent waters. The craft capsized, but soon 
righted, and one of the boys was seen clinging to the bottom, holding with the grasp 
born of death and without strength to make another effort. Again the boat was 
capsized, and this time disappeared. 

Meanwhile those aboard the vessel launched the third boat. It was their last 
remaining hope, but they tarried some little time to make certain that this craft should 
not go the way of its predecessors. 

Six were rescued. 

Lastly, June 10, 1909, the Spanish Royal Mail steamer Antonio 
Lopez stranded on the Fire Island bar: 

As the transfer began a heavy ground swell rolled the steamship, and the passengers 
made their way down the liner’s side by means of a sea ladder with difficulty. Some 
of the women screamed and refused at first to try the descent. Among the 420 steerage 
passengers there was a panic, many of them kneeling on the decks and beseeching 
Captain Mir to put them safely ashore. There were many children both in the cabin 
and steerage, and the little ones were dropped very quickly into the boats. 

I will detain you but a moment longer, gentlemen, to say this: 
I have heard some loose talk here to-day about some company here, 
this Martin Company, being accused of bringing about this legislation. 
There is absolutely nothing in that. The American Association is re¬ 
sponsible as much as anybody else for bringing about this legislation, 
and we shall keep on. The ex-President of the United States, Mr. 
Roosevelt, ordered this commission, which you all know of, and he had 
good reasons for doing so. The commission made its report. It 
Ses here in this committee, and that, and that only, is the reason for 
the association taking this active part which it has taken and will 
continue to take. We know that you gentlemen can be safely 
trusted to do the absolutely just and square thing. We do not 
propose, so far as our feeble efforts are concerned, that those who 
sleep to-night in eternal forgetfulness shall be ignored in the interest 
of persons who come here pleading for their dividends. We know 
that you gentlemen are the representatives of the people. We say 
to you that—as, for instance, in Congressman Goulden’s district— 
there are thousands of people whose lost and loved ones are as dear 
to them as the dividend checks are to the steamship people. 

Mr. Goulden. Captain Simpson, of Detroit, begs the indulgence 
of the committee for a few words. 

STATEMENT OF ME. FREDERICK J. SIMPSON, REPRESENTING 

THE DETROIT AND CLEVELAND NAVIGATION COMPANY, OF 

DETROIT, MICH. 

Mr. Simpson. I would say for our company that on the ships that 
they built two years ago they have every possible device that they 
thought was as good as or better than the old system. We have 
those Welin davits, and I or any other of the masters on that line 
of steamers would rather have the old rig than the Welin, as I will 
endeavor to show you. The first year that that big boat, the City 
of Cleveland , was inspected the inspectors were worried a good deal 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


67 


about whether they could lower that boat inside of two minutes with 
the Welin davits. They lowered their other boats in from fifty-five 
seconds to one minute and five seconds. The ship carries 12 boats. 
With the Welin device they just got under the wire. But they did 
that when the boat was empty. 

I have seen times on my boat when for two or three weeks in the 
month in the fall of the year I think this Martin rig that I have seen 
on the dock this morning would have been impracticable on account 
of the ice. Our old rig with the manila ropes never gets that way. 
The City of Cleveland has everything other than this Schmitt device 
and the Martin, but the old rig has been the most practical in the way 
of saving time. 

I think myself that this bill is not practical on account of only 
allowing two minutes; and then there is the other provision about 
loading the boat on deck. On my boat a great many times, if an 
accident happened it would be just as sensible, I think, to take a 
club to the passengers or to take a gun and shoot them as they came 
up out oi the cabin, as it would be to attempt to launch that boat 
loaded in a seaway. 

I think the only advantage that the Welin device has is that it 
will not rock back in a seaway. It does not have to be guided in 
a seaway. Ours, the old crane, does, and which we can do and get 
it overboard and in the water in fifty-five seconds or a minute; quicker 
than the other. I think the law at the present time takes care, if it 
is lived up to, that the boat shall go in the water both ends at the same 
time, and any boat that does not go in that way is not up to the law. 

Mr. Goulden. How long does it take you to lower a boat, 
ordinarily ? 

Mr. Simpson. We can do it in from fifty-five seconds to a minute and 
a quarter. The inspectors come aboard our vessels and give us our 
tests. The City of Cleveland is about 45 feet high, and I would per¬ 
sonally object to wire for the same reasons that one of the gentlemen 
had here; that is, for getting your boat back aboard of the steamer. 
I do not believe it would be advisable for this bill or anything else to 
approve something that would get that one boat load over and then not 
be of any use to you. 

The Chairman. Why could it not be used again ? 

Mr. Simpson. In a seaway it would be impossible to get that boat 
back, for the same reason, that the wire is perfectly rigid, and the 
winding both ends at the same time, if you hook one end in—the law 
requires you shall have a releasing gear there—and if you hook one end 
in it will jerk the boat out of the water. On the Lakes, where we carried 
in our passenger district last year 12,000,000 passengers, not a single 
life was lost, and that has been the case for a number of years. 

I think that loading your boat when it is in the water, lower¬ 
ing your load into it, is" much safer. We have ladders and every 
convenience for getting the people on board a boat. A great many 
times you realize when you launch your boat that that is not 
the safest place to load her. Suppose my vessel is on the beach. I 
do not want to sacrifice that boat, and it may be risky in loading that 
boat. But I would like, if that boat is going to break herself to 
pieces and turn over, to have that happen with nobody in the boat, 
and we can launch a boat and get it to the side, or back to the stern, 
and load the people in, and it will be much safer. 


68 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


The Chairman. You would not be compelled to load them on 
deck. 

Mr. Simpson. As I understood the bill, I thought you would be. 

The Chairman. No; the bill does not say that. 

Mr. Simpson. Our boats have all been tested as to capacity, and 
they have been lowered into the water and taken out and inspected 
every year. I think the law is right, too, and just, that the cranes 
and all the material should be strong enough. 

Now, take our manila rope; you take where the wire is used for 
towing on the Lakes, they use an emergency rope of manila, because 
the strain is so great in a seaway that it is not safe to tow with a 
wire rope. 

This device that I went to see yesterday" on the dock down here our 
company investigated last winter, because our company has got every¬ 
thing on board its steamers that they figure is going to be a better¬ 
ment. We have our wireless and have had it for years, and we have 
automatic fire sprinklers to the rooms, and we equip our boats "with 
everything. On one boat we had 1^-inch pipes and we put in 2 
and 2\ inch pipes, so as to have a greater supply of water. I really 
believe that if there was something that would be a betterment 
over the old rig that they would not have to be compelled to get it, 
but they would get it of themselves; and I think that the board of 
supervising inspectors, if it was left in their hands, because they are 
men that have been brought up in the harness, could be trusted to 
look after it. I know that they cooperate with our company; that is, 
if there is any suggestion that they can make, whether the law requires 
it or not, we get it. We have had things that they have suggested to 
other lines, and they could not compel them under the law, and we 
have gotten them and used them in the service. Take the Goodrich 
Line, running to Chicago, and the B. and C. Line, they go along and 
spend thousands to beautify a boat, and they certainly would not 
spend thousands to beautify a boat and put telephones in the rooms 
and hot and cold water, and equip the boats with elevators, and all 
that- 

The Chairman. You do that to induce people to travel with you? 

Mr. Simpson. I think it would be the greatest inducement to have 
a safety device on our decks, if you could show any body of practical 
men that it would be a betterment over what we have got. 

The Chairman. Yes; I think so, too. 

Mr. Simpson. You take the old system, and if I can not get a boat 
into the water quicker than I can with any new device, I will eat her. 

Mr. Fairchild. What is your system, the Welin? 

Mr. Simpson. Yes, sir; we have the Welin. 

Mr. Fairchild. Do you mean to say that after using the Welin 
system, and investigating it carefully, you still think the old system 
is more practical and generally better? 

Mr. Simpson. Well, what I mean is that I would not throw the 
old away to get the Welin, because the law says you shall get the 
boat in the water in two minutes. 

Mr. Fairchild. Would you take the Welin- 

Mr. Simpson. Not in preference. 

Mr. Fairchild (continuing). If you had not the old? 

Mr. Simpson. Not in preference." 




PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 69 

Mr. Fairchild. What would be the natural tendency to-day in 
building boats, to equip with the Welin, or with the old system, after 
knowing what the Welin is? 

Mr. Simpson. I would take the old. The law reads “two minutes,” 
and I think the time saved is the better. 

Mr. Fairchild. Supposing, there was no law whatever, and it was 
left entirely to your discretion, then which system would you adopt ? 

Mr. Simpson. I would take the old system of round-bar davits, 
strong enough to carry the whole crew with a full load, and the manila 
rope, and I will stick to that until there is something shown to us that 
is oetter. 

As I say, last winter, they investigated this apparatus that is down 
on the dock, and they would not have waited for any bill or any¬ 
thing else, if it was better. I say that rig will work, but I do not 
think it will work as quick as ours; and I know there are times of 
the year when we have ice and frozen snow, that it will be impossible 
to work it. Now, you take the Welin, I do not think it is impossible 
there, because you have such great leverage for that crank that you 
can force the ice off the worm or the thread; but you take a track, 
where you have to run that thing along the track like a street car, 
and that gets covered with ice, and no cars running over it during 
the whole of a storm, and the ice and snow accumulating there, it 
will clog it, and it spoils the whole system; or, if there is any device 
to hold that down on the track, you could not force it out. 

Mr. Fairchild. But could you not keep that track clear? Do not 
the street cars keep their tracks clean and clear ? 

Mr. Simpson. They do by continually traveling on them. And 
then, you might say that the ice would bother our old falls. It 
should not, if you are leaving it to the law. The law says you shall 
protect your equipment so that it will operate. We take the fall and 
we put a little jacket on it, and it does not interfere, and you do not 
have to take it off when you come to work it. If a little ice gets on a 
line it does not make any difference; I never knew one to part. 
Just jerking it a little, it will clear it. 

Mr. Beer. Have you ever had a fire like the Slocum fire ? 

Mr. Simpson. No; not in a great many years; not in my time. 

Mr. Beer. Do you think if the old equipment of manila ropes and 
falls were on one of your boats out in the middle of the lake and the 
steamer became a sheet of fire in ten or fifteen minutes, as the Slocum 
did, that your manila ropes would not burn and become useless? 
Would you still think you had lived up to up-to-date life-saving 
requirements ? 

Mr. Simpson. I have sailed twenty-three years, twenty-one years 
with the company that I am with, and I never saw the time when 
there was enough fire around to destroy a manila rope, if there was 
enough men around to handle that rope. 

Mr. Beer. Every rope on the Slocum was burned. 

Mr. Simpson. They ran the boat a long while after they got the 
fire all over the boat. 

Mr. Beer. But the ropes were burned. How could they launch the 
boats after the ropes were burned ? 

Mr. Simpson. Yes; but I say there is no launching apparatus you 
can operate in a fire like that. 


70 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 

Mr. Goulden. There was only fifteen minutes between the time 
the fire was discovered and the time the boat was beached. She 
ran less than 2 miles. 

Mr. Simpson. I think that if the minute it is shown the fire is 
beyond control you get those boats over, you will have no difficulty. 
Of course if you wait until the boats are fire bound, they are no good 
to you then. If you go along and drive your ship until the fire 
spreads all over the boat, you can not lower your boats, and wire 
rope is not any better than manila, so far as the fire is concerned then; 
it can not be used. Take wire rope; I think it will be more apt to 
be deteriorated, as a general thing, than the manila, because they 
can not take the wire rope off and use it for any other purpose, and 
they will not renew it so often. 

Mr. Beer. In the Windsor Hotel fire, the last person in the build¬ 
ing was the elevator boy. He carried his last passengers, he answered 
the last ring, and the roof fell in on him and he was lost; but his 
wire ropes stayed there until the roof fell in. 

Mr. Simpson. Yes. Now, I will say in that regard that that man 
was not stationed where the wire was. He was in the cage of the 
elevator. The man on board ship has got to be right where the wire 
is in order to operate the boat. 

Mr. Beer. What do you call the wire rope that runs from the 
elevator? That is attached to the cage of the elevator. 

Mr. Duff. May I ask a question in regard to the manila rope and 
the wire rope. Assuming that there is sufficient fire to destroy the 
average manila rope used in launching lifeboats, if you were to run 
to launch a boat and should find that the rope was burned, how much 
of the boat would be left ? 

Mr. Beer. A steel boat ? 

Mr. Simpson. I can not see that there would be enough left of 
the boat to launch if the falls were burned. 

Mr. Beer. A steel boat ? 

The Chairman. Why should it be a steel boat? Take a wooden 
boat. 

Mr. Goulden. Could not the rope falls be burned by sparks from 
the smokestack? 

Mr. Simpson. That is .possible. 

Mr. Goulden. And probable, is it not? 

Mr. Simpson. Yes. 

Mr. Duff. My idea was, if there was enough fire to destroy the 
ropes, would not the boat be destroyed or practically destroyed ? 

Mr. Simpson. It would not be habitable around that boat, in that 
locality. Of course, there is no getting around the fact that if a spark 
gets on a fall and burns it, it may weaken it so as to render it useless. 
But you might say, suppose sparks should get on the top of the boat, 
and set her afire, and all that sort of thing. 

Mr. Goulden. A fall may be burned through, or it may be weak¬ 
ened so that when you attempt to use it in getting the boat into the 
water you would have trouble in lowering the boat, whereas with 
the wire rope you would not. 

Mr. Simpson. Now, there is a good deal of reason in that. I would 
say that there are not any in all our boats, and there never will be 
in a boat that I sail, but what will be looked after frequently enough 
to see that the falls are in condition. You take all of our boats, and 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


71 


there is not one on which, if the master does not require them, the 
company does not require them to get new falls twice a year; prob¬ 
ably not quite so often, but they can use the rope for other pur¬ 
poses on board a ship, and those falls are renewed frequently. 

Mr. Goulden. I can say that your line is very well run. I have 
been on it, and I know that it is well run. Unfortunately, ttfe poor 
cap tarn of the Slocum , although he was thoroughly competent and 
efficient, was weak in allowing the board of officers of the company 
to overrule his protest, and not to give him what was absolutely 
necessary. 

Mr. Simpson. I do not agree fully with the finding in the case of the 
Slocum, but I say on our line, where the company gets everything 
that is reasonable and proper to protect life, they ought to hang us if 
we do not have it. J 8 8 

Mr. Goulden. Yours is not the Knickerbocker Steamboat Com¬ 
pany of New York. 

The Chairman. If there was no law, and everybody ran just as 
they pleased, if there was no law to compel certain things to be done, 
and compliance with certain requirements, the requirements would 
not be furnished. We have to have law. 

Mr. Goulden. Mr. Chairman, it was charged here that the Com¬ 
missioner of Navigation or the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had 
never been asked for an opinion on this bill. I trust that the chair¬ 
man will take the precaution to see that that opinion is before the 
committee at its next consideration of this matter. I do not know 
but what it is here now; I do not say that it is not here. 

The Chairman. The approval of the whole board is in the hearings, 
and also of the Department of Commerce and Labor, and also of the 
Inspector-General, of the whole device. 

(At 2.15 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned.) 

(The clippings submitted by Mr. Beer are here printed in the 
record in full as follows:) 

FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX TAKEN OFF LINER AGROUND—SPANIARD’S PASSENGERS 

TRANSFERRED TO RELIEF BOAT. BROUGHT TO THIS CITY—EXCITING AND PERILOUS 

FEATURES MARK REMOVAL OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN—CREW OF 135 STAY 

ABOARD—ANTONIO LOPEZ WENT AGROUND AT FIRE ISLAND DURING FOG LAST NIGHT 

(JUNE 9, 1909). 

The stranding of the Spanish Royal Mail liner Antonio Lopez on the Fire Island 
bar was attended by perilous features this morning when the 546 passengers, men, 
women, and children were transferred in a rolling sea to the Merritt-Chapman wreck¬ 
ing boat Relief. This vessel, the largest of the Merritt-Chapman fleet, had all the 
passengers and mails on board by noon and later started for quarantine. The Lopez 
was inward bound from Spain and Italian ports. 

The boats used in the transfer were those of the Relief and a lifeboat from the Blue 
Point station. As the transfer began a heavy ground swell rolled the steamship, and 
the passengers made their way down the liner’s side by means of a sea ladder with 
difficulty. Some of the women screamed and refused at first to try the descent. 
Among the 420 steerage passengers there was a panic, many of them kneeling on the 
decks and beseeching Captain Mir to put them safely ashore. There were many 
children both in the cabin and steerage and the little ones were dropped very quickly 
into the boats. 

The steamship grounded at about 9 o’clock last night in the fog but there was no 
attempt at life-saving during the night, principally because the life-savers are off 
duty at this time of year. Capt. Charles Baker of the Point o’ Woods station was on 
duty but had no crew to man a boat. 


72 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Starting for the scene early this morning the Relief was ready to undertake the 
transfer of the passengers at 8.30 o’clock, at which time the mist blew away tempo¬ 
rarily. Four boats were launched, manned by the wreckers, and by 11.30 o’clock 18 
boatloads had been taken to the Relief. Soon afterwards began the transfer of mails, 
which took about half an hour. The Relief started for the city at about 1 o’clock. At 
this time the stranded liner was working about badly, being down in the sand 4 or 5 
feet. The vessel was about 300 yards off the beach, broadside to the shore. She is 
a single-funnel black steamship. 

On the main deck of the liner aft, where the steerage passengers waited to be taken 
off, there were scenes of confusion. Men and women came out of the ’tween decks 
carrying huge bundles and bags of personal goods. Many of the men had shawls 
wrapped around them and wore big hats and the women were clad in light clothing 
of bright colors. Children cried, stewards went rushing about with dishes of food and 
the engineers and oilers came on deck to watch the transfer. 

On the saloon deck the first cabin passengers, mostly Spanish business men and 
their wives, waited for the boats. Some of the women were panic-stricken and had to 
be forcibly handed over the rail. There were several priests and some Cuban planters 
among the saloon passengers. 

Some of the steerage passengers refused at first to leave the vessel without their 
personal goods, but the wreckers refused to take the huge bundles. Edward Baker, 
the 23-year-old son of Captain Baker of the Point o’Woods station, got together a 
boat’s crew and this boat did good work. It made eight trips between the stranded 
liner and the Relief and transferred 134 passengers. 

In trying to save a stout Spanish woman young Baker fell overboard and was hauled 
out half drowned -by John Oakley of the crew. 

Among those rescued by Baker’s boat were 20 American girls who remained cool and 
sang while the boat was. going to the Relief, a distance of about 500 feet. Baker said that 
the Spanish women he rescued wept and wrung their hands during the short trip. 

The boats rolled in the heavy ground swell and several times came near smashing 
against the larger ships. The sea increased as the work went on and at one time the 
rescue crews stopped work until it grew calmer. 

A great many summer people came to the beach and watched the rescue. Summer 
girls built fires on the beach and cooked lunch for the life-savers. 

The Lopez worked steadily down the beach through the morning, being driven by an 
east wind, making 800 yards through the sand before finally lodging fast. The captain 
and crew remained aboard. No leaks have been sprung and it is thought that there 
is no danger of the vessel’s pounding to pieces. No attempt has yet been made to 
raise the cargo of hemp, rope, and wine. Captain Baker arrived here just in time to 
greet his son as he brought his boat safely through the heavy surf after the morning’s 
work was over. 

“I tried to shoot a line over last night, and I put so much powder in I thought I’d 
break the gun,” the young life-saver said to his father, “but you didn’t make it, so I 
stayed on the shore all night watching and moving our boat down the shore as the 
Lopez drifted. This morning at 7.30 o’clock she flew the signal ‘Send a boat,’ and I 
cut out for her. At 9 o’clock she flew the distress signal and then the work of taking 
off the passengers began. The only trouble we had was in first hitting the seas as we 
rounded the bow of the Lopez and headed for the Relief .” 

A cannon shot offshore and the flare of rockets which could be made out in the fog 
were the signals that notified Captain Baker, of the Point O’Woods station, that a 
vessel had stranded. He made out the signals at about 9 o’clock. He telephoned 
to Bay Shore, and the wrecking company and revenue cutters were notified. The 
Mohawk and the derelict destroyer left the Staten Island anchorage as soon as the 
fog permitted this morning. They expected to get lines aboard immediately, but 
more fog and the transfer of the passengers interfered with this. 

The fog settled down again at about 10 o’clock and shut out the stranded vessel 
from the shore view. Until that time she could be seen from Bay Shore and other 
Long Island towns. Some of the boatmen made money taking the summer residents 
across the bay in small boats to the outer beach. 

Vessels of the Spanish line ply between Spanish ports, Genoa, Naples, and Habana, 
and Mexico, calling here en route to land a few passengers, but considerable cargo. 
A regular service is maintained by the line’s fleet of 6 boats. 

In the volunteer crew that aided young Edward Baker in the rescue work were 
Walley Baker, his brother; John Oakley, Carroll Dempsey, and George Pvhodes. 
The tug I. J. Merritt was sighted just as the Relief was leaving. It is not believed 
that the Lopez can be pulled off at high tide. Young Baker brought a line ashore at 
11.45 o’clock and made it fast to an anchor buried in the sand. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


73 


Life-saving crews disband on June 1 and go on a vacation until August 1. Ship¬ 
wrecks are not expected to occur at this time of year and the Government economizes 
by sending the men home. 

Several members of the life-saving crew live the year around at Point o’ Woods, 
where there is quite a settlement, instead of returning, as is done during the summer 
by the members of most other stations, to the settlements on the inner shore. While 
Captain Baker went about gathering these men and others in Point o’ Woods for a 
volunteer life-saving crew, his son, E. W. Baker, tried to shoot a line over the stranded 
vessel. 

After several efforts it was found that the ship lay too far out to make it possible to 
bring in passengers on the life line. Her position was calculated at nearly 1,000 yards 
out. In the meantime Captain Baker gathered a crew. Influenced by the heavy 
surf and the apparent security of the vessel for the time being, he concluded to post¬ 
pone launching until daylight. 

In the meantime there continued entire uncertainty as to the name of the stranded 
vessel. The beach telephones informed New York that an unknown ship was ashore. 
On receipt of the news two wrecking tugs were dispatched to the scene from New York 
Harbor. The wireless outfits about this port ticked up, but got no answer, and con¬ 
cluded that the ship was without wireless equipment. 

About dawn the tug Relief , the first wrecker to arrive at the scene, was observed to 
give the ship a line. The Relief kept to seaward and anchored outside of her. 

At 7 o’clock the volunteer crew launched the surfboat amid a crowd of Point 
o’ Woods people on the beach. The sea had moderated at daybreak. The crew were 
partly the regular well-drilled members of the station. They launched without mis¬ 
hap and rowed out to the vessel. They came back in about half an hour with dis¬ 
patches from the captain. These were taken to the telegraph station at the Fire 
Island Observatory and transmitted to the offices of the ship’s line, the Companfa 
Transatlantica, at "Pier 8, East River. 

Then, for the first time, those on shore learned the name of the ship, the Antonio 
Lopez, due here from Cadiz. She carries, according to the captain’s messages, 67 
first-class passengers, 39 second class, and 420 steerage, in addition to her complement 
of 135 men. 


ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE LIVES LOST IN BURNING SHIP—ONLY 27 MEN WERE 

SAVED FROM JAP STEAMER—DESTROYED CLOSE TO SHORE—FOG HID THE TRAGEDY 

FROM THOSE WHO MIGHT HAVE GONE TO RESCUE. 

[Special to the Mail and Empire.] 

Victoria, B. C., July 4, 1909.—One hundred and forty-nine lives were sacrificed by 
the burning of the Japanese steamer Nihonkai Maru. Details of the disaster have been 
brought by the Empress of India. The victims were the entire crew, 16 men in all, 
together with 132 fisher folk, both men and women. The disaster occurred on June 
14, near Aomori, and what made the tragedy more pitiful was the fact that the vessel 
was so close to shore that there need have been no fatalities, but for the fact that fog 
obscured the burning vessel. 

The cause of the fire will never be determined. 

The first intimation of danger received by those aboard, the majority of whom were 
fishermen returning to their homes in Japanese villages, was when the flames burst 
from the bunkers and drove those aboard for temporary safety to the riggings. From 
there many dropped into the sea, exhausted or overcome by the smoke, while others 
jumped overboard to meet a more merciful death by drowning, while still others were 
literally roasted to death. 

BOATS RENDERED USELESS. 

There were two boats aboard the steamer, but no life buoys, and the former were 
rendered useless, being carried away through clumsiness in lowering and the over¬ 
eagerness of the panic-stricken passengers to secure places therein. 

The fog eventually lifted for a short time. It was noticed during the interval from 
the village of Motech that a vessel was on fire off the coast and the steamship Benton 
Maru was hurriedly dispatched to the rescue. This vessel found the object of her 
search with some difficulty, but too late. Of the 172 on board but 27 were rescued, 
all of them suffering more or less severe burns and other injuries. 



74 PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


PASSENGERS FELL INTO SEA—THRILLING SCENES ATTENDED WRECK OF THE 

“ LAURENTIAN.” 

/ 

St. Johns, Newfoundland, September 7, 1909.—Thrilling scenes attended the loss 
of the Allan Line steamer Laurentian, bound from Boston for Glasgow, while piled 
up on the rocks near Cape Race during a dense fog, at 6 o’clock Monday morning. The 
vessel is a total wreck. 

She carried 20 cabin passengers, 30 steerage, and a crew numbering 40. When the 
ship struck, she rebounded heavily, the shock throwing most of the sleeping passengers 
from their berths. They stampeded for the deck, without stopping to dress, and for 
an hour excitement prevailed. Captain Imrie and his officers, however, succeeded 
in quieting all hands, and persuaded everyone to return to quarters and dress. 

A stiff northwest wind banged the ship about, and at 7 o’clock orders were given to 
put the boats overboard. Twenty-five of the passengers, mostly women and children, 
were placed in the first boat, but the bow tackle collapsed and several persons were 
thrown into the sea. Others were injured by the thumping of the small craft against 
the sides of the collapsing liner. W T ithin fifteen minutes those thrown into the water 
were drawn to the deck and the passengers in the disabled boats were rescued. 

Six more lifeboats were put over, but the passengers say that some of the seamen 
of the Laurentian did not know how to row and that they were obliged to handle the 
oars themselves. Along the iron-bound coast cliffs rise to a height of 50 feet. 

After the boat had been adrift two hours, fearing to put in, a boat from a near by 
fishing village was sighted through the fog, and finally it piloted the life craft to a 
harbor. 


IIESTIA WRECKED; a SCORE PERISHED—DONALDSON LINER RUNS ON OLD PROPRIETOR 

LEDGE, GRAND MANAN—ONLY SIX PERSONS SAVED—HEAVY GALE AND ERROR OF 

MAN AT WHEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR BAY OF FUNDY DISASTER. 

Eastport, Me., October 26, 1909.—The North Atlantic’s annual toll in human lives 
and vessels received the first tithe of the winter season from its tributary—the Bay of 
Fundy—to-day, in the loss of at least a score of souls in the destruction on a shoal inside 
of Proprietor’s Ledge, off Seal Cove, of the steamer Hestia, bound from Glasgow for 
St. John and Baltimore. 

Four of the victims, young Scotch laddies, were passengers on the ill-fated steamer, 
and the others were members of the crew. Captain Newman and 20 or more members 
of the crew were last seen amidships while the boat was being tossed on an aggravated 
sea, making still more dangerous the ever-treacherous tides which rush into and out 
of the Bay of Fundy. 

Of the 40 persons who were on board the steamer when she piled up on the shoal, 
at 1 o’clock this morning, only 6 are positively known to have been saved. They were 
forced to cling to the impaled craft as it was being tossed by the great seas. It was not 
until 3p.m. that the life-savers from the Seal Cove Station were able to man their boats 
and. reach the steamer. When rescued the survivors were in a weakened state after 
their fourteen hours’ ordeal. Those known to be saved are: Third Mate Stewart, 
Second Engineer Morgan, Seaman Keen, Seaman McKenzie, Seaman Smith, and 
Seaman McVicker. 

A heavy northeasterly gale is believed to have been responsible for the Hestia's fate, 
although it is supposed that a mistake of the man at the wheel in believing he had 
picked up Gannet Rock Light while really discerning the gleams of the light-house on 
Machias Seal Island, several miles southwest, carried the ship many miles off her 
course. 

The sailors of the middle watch had been out of their bunks an hour, and all the 
others, together with the passengers and the officers, except the navigating officer, 
were stowed in their bunks w en the crash came an hour after midnight. Their sleep 
had been broken by the violent movements of the steamer under the influence of a 
heavy gale from the northeast. When the men of the midnight to 4 a. m. watch came 
on deck for their turn, they were told by the relieved watch that the gale was a bad 
one, the worst of a succession which they had encountered on the passage across. 
But they did not expect the disaster which met them within an hour. 

In the belief that he was leaving Grand Manan on the port tack, and following the 
usual course to St. John, the navigating officer sought the distinguishing marks on 
that route. But they were not to be seen. Instead the steamer was heading for Seal 
Cove, between Gannett Rock and Machias Seal Island, over which seas broke which 
barely covered a treacherous bottom of shoals. It was on one of these, just inside Old 
Proprietor’s Ledge, that the vessel’s nose became impaled, leaving the stern free in 
the surrounding sea and subject to the violent movements of those aggravated waters. 



PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


75 


Captain Newman at once ordered his men to prepare to put the lifeboats overboard, 
lhree of the lifeboats were available, and one by one they were swung from the deck; 
but while the tackle of one of the boats was being unfastened the small craft dropped 
from the davits into the sea and was soon beyond recovery. Then preparations were 
made to prevent a second similar mishap. Into another boat were placed the four 
boys and over a dozen members of the crew. They had barely taken their places 
when the tackle gave way, and without warning the boat with its occupants was pre- 
cipitated into the turbulent waters. The craft capsized but soon righted, and one of 
the boys was seen clinging to the bottom, holding with the grasp born of death and 
without strength to make another effort. Again the boat was capsized and this time' 
disappeared. 

Meanwhile those aboard the vessel launched the third boat. It was their last 
remaining hope, but they tarried some little time to make certain that this craft should 
not go the way of its predecessors. Captain Newman and all the remaining seamen 
except six entered the boat. These six were the ones rescued by the Seal Cove life- 
savers this afternoon. 

Captain Newman and his men succeeded in hauling two of those struggling in the 
water into their overcrowded craft, but were unable to rescue others whose cries could 
be heard above the gale. Third Mate Stewart, now in charge of the stranded steamer, 
and the remaining members of the crew in the meantime built a raft and placed it in 
readiness for launching. A supply of water and food was lashed to it. 

Through the hours of darkness and dawn the Hestia gradually settled by the stern. 
At daylight Mate Stewart hoisted the Union Jack reversed, as a signal of distress, but 
the wreck is not in the line of transatlantic or other steamship navigation. Only the 
hardy Grand Manan fishermen frequent those shoal waters, and as storms of this kind 
make the fisherfolk stay in port, it was late in the afternoon before the vessel’s plight 
was discovered. 

Against the gale which threatened to upset them nearly a score of fishing craft set 
out to the assistance of the wrecked steamer. One after another was forced to turn 
back after answering the signals of the Hestia. Finally the Seal Cove life savers were 
able to board the Hestia , and after considerable difficulty succeeded in taking off six 
men. The vessel is a total wreck. 

Captain Newman and his boat, which carried about 20 men, was missing at a late 
hour tonight, and they may possibly have perished. 

The Hestia was a steel screw steamer, built at Sunderland in 1890, and was formerly 
the Mary Beyts. She registers 2,434 tons net and is from Glasgow. 


Baltimore, Md., October 26.—At the offices of the Robert Ramsay Company, agents 
here of the Donaldson Line, it was stated that no information could be obtained as to 
the officers and crew or of the value of the cargo of the Hestia other than that a portion 
of the latter, destined for this port, consisted of about 1,200 tons of pig iron, sulphate 
of ammonia, whisky, eathernware, dry goods, etc. 


Department op Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, May 5, 1910. 

Hon. William S. Greene, 

Chairman Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries , 

House of Representatives , Washington. 

Dear Sir: The department has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter 
of the 27th ultimo, requesting its opinion upon the inclosed bill H. R. 21836, now 
under consideration by your committee. 

In reply, you are informed that, while the bill on its face provides simply for the 
adoption of a life-savin" device, it is my opinion that the legislation, if enacted, will 
create conditions that it will be practically impossible to meet. The bill provides 
that every vessel subject to the provisions of Title LI I shall have all the lifeboats 
required by law provided with a boat-launching apparatus of such character and 
specifications that the requirement can only be met by one particular device, and of 
which, the department has been advised, not one has as yet been installed on any ves¬ 
sel, and of which only a demonstrating model has thus far been constructed. 

The requirements of the bill are so drastic and sweeping in their character that they 
can not be met by any device; for instance, the requirement that the apparatus must 
positively prevent the possibility of either end of the boat carrying away, a require¬ 
ment so unique that it must fail by its own suggestion. The Board of Supervising 




76 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


Inspectors has, by its rules, provided that lifeboats shall be fitted with such davits 
and gear as will enable the boats to be safely launched in less than two minutes from 
the time the clearing away of the boats is begun, and there has been no trouble what¬ 
ever experienced in meeting this requirement by the devices which are now in use 
and which are in competition in the open market. 

Attention is drawn to the fact that there are hundreds of vessels subject to the 
provisions of Title LII, upon which it will be impossible to install a device of this 
character, for the reason that some of these boats are too small to admit of the installa¬ 
tion, and others are of such construction that the superstructure would necessarily 
have to be rebuilt to permit the placing of such an apparatus on board, the installation 
of the device in either case being absolutely unnecessary. 

My impression is that if this bill were enacted into law, it would work a practical 
monopoly for one device, and inasmuch as there are other devices that will, in the 
opinion of the board, meet the reasonable and necessary requirements, I can not 
recommend the proposed legislation. 

Very truly, yours, Charles Nagel, 

Secretary. 


American Steamship Association, 

New York, April 14 , 1910. 

Hon. W. S. Greene, 

Chairman Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries , 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Referring to H. R. bill No. 21836, which has been referred to your committee. 

This bill has apparently been introduced at the instance of parties interested in 
the adoption of a patent device. It seeks to amend the present legal requirements 
for lifeboat installation and equipment aboard steamships carrying passengers to an 
extent which would increase rather than diminish the danger to life at sea when it 
became necessary to make use of the boats. A moment’s consideration will clearly 
demonstrate this. 

In the first place, this bill requires that the lifeboat shall be loaded while inboard 
and that each end of the lifeboat shall not be lowered at a greater or less speed than 
the other. If the ship were sinking head first, or stern first, which is almost always 
the case in a disaster at sea, under such a requirement as is contemplated in this bill 
the lifeboat, having to be lowered evenly, would necessarily partake of the angle 
toward which the ship was pointing at the time, and one or the other end of the boat 
would be water borne first. Or suppose while lowering the lifeboat some obstacle 
is encountered, you could not lower one end of the lifeboat quicker than the other 
or further down than the other, which might cause the boat to capsize or to throw 
the passengers into the water. It is safe to say that with danger inevitable any such 
absurd requirement would be ignored. Under the present requirements the lowering 
of a lifeboat can be adjusted so as to offset any such angle or obstacle. Indeed, the 
safety of the lives of passengers aboard lifeboats depends largely upon the facility 
with which the ends of the lowering tackle can be varied to meet prevailing conditions. 

Nor has experience in cases of accident demonstrated that it is at all times desirable 
to load lifeboats with passengers before lowering into the water, particularly so when 
the ship is rolling in a heavy sea or high wind, as the bilge of the lifeboat fetching up 
against the side of the ship would be liable to capsize her and throw the people aboard 
her into the water. 

Again, this bill requires that boat-launching apparatus, including falls, shall be 
fireproof throughout. In order to make the falls of lifeboats fireproof they would 
have to be made of wire, and the moment you undertake to reeve a wire fall it becomes 
an additional source of danger, as if a tangle occurs, or it becomes necessary to cut 
off any part of it to disentangle the boat, this can not readily be accomplished, and 
to such an extent is inferior to the ropes at present permissible. 

We submit that before any such device as is contemplated by this bill is authorized 
by positive law it should first be submitted to the Board of Supervising Inspectors 
and by them examined, tested, and approved. 

Respectfully, 


H. H. Raymond, 

Vice-President Clyde Steamship Company. 


W. H. Pleasants, 

Vice-President Ocean Steamship Company , 

W. B. Walker, 

President and General Manager Old Dominion Steamship Company, 

Committee. 



PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


77 


[Memoranda on H. R. 21836.] 

Hudson River Day Line, 

tt- W 7 TT r. New York, April 23, 1910. 

Hon. William H. Greene, 

Chairman Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Our objections that we were requested,, at the close of your hearing of April 22 
to hie with you in writing, are as follows: 

First. This company has built in the last four years two large and fast river steamers 
ot the most advanced types for operation in shallow waters. We employed naval 
architects and marine engineers of highest national and international reputation, and 
every detail of any importance, such as life-saving devices, were most carefully con¬ 
sidered in conference of our own practical men and these technical and practical 
experts. We went carefully over the davit question and examined the various devices, 
including the Welin davit, and the decision was unanimous in favor of the round davit 
as being much more secure and so simple that, with any ordinary care, it could not get 
° U j° • r ° r wron S- This decision of our practical men was based on practicability 
and efficiency alone, the cost not considered, and they were very near together in price. 

Second. A fool-proof device must be demanded. 

Third. We have examined the davit on the fire dock at Washington and we would 
not consider replacing our installation of davits with it for many times the cost of 
replacement. 

Fourth. In so complicated a device many things may happen any one of which 
would destroy its usefulness at a critical time. If the machine was operated all the 
time as a coal bucket with a hoisting engine and one man in constant attendance, it 
would be different, but this davit is idle all of its life except during drill. 

Fifth. W ire rope is unkind in handling, as all know who have had experience with 
it, and in winding into a grooved drum as in the model, it is likely to jam, and once 
jammed at the drum or kinked at any of the sheaves, it would not render and both the 
boat and device would be useless. 

Sixth. Any obstruction which might in a confused time get on the railroad track 
or segmental track (which we believe is intended to be built) would jam the heavy 
mass and make it useless. 

Seventh. So many parts as are here employed, track, drum, brake, bevel gear, 
shafting, etc., and the delicate hand clutch for changing direction would be subject, 
even with most careful and intricate covering, to become so coated with ice that it 
would not be safe. 

Eighth. The device does not lend itself at all well to the structural conditions of 
our inland service, and many of the steamers would require a large reconstruction of 
upper works to use it. 

Ninth. The device shown on the fire dock was more cumbersome than any we have 
ever seen, extending 10 feet and 6 inches inboard. You will, of course, remember 
that deck space must be considered. 

Tenth. We should never in an emergency allow any of our lifeboats to be loaded 
from the upper decks, no matter what the law might be, because it would be in violation 
of the oaths of sworn officers to use their utmost powers for the protection of life, and 
we consider it would be highly dangerous and criminally negligent to make such an 
attempt. Our officers are experienced and efficient and can prove again, if they should 
be put to the test, that American steamboat men have cool heads and resourceful 
bravery, and that they can be depended on in time of danger. Loaded boats 
descending from the upper decks would have to pass the decks below, and it would 
be impossible to protect the passengers from others jumping aboard and overturning 
them while swinging in the air. The case of a steamboat is entirely different from 
the steamship at sea. 

Eleventh. Other objections to allowing passengers from inland steamers to enter 
boats from the upper deck are so numerous and you have heard so many of them 
that we will not recite them. 

Twelfth. In our service we are always so close to shore as to run alongside without 
any trouble, and with our 18 feet overhang of guards and light draft of steamers our 
passengers could be let down on our long planks so that they could walk ashore. 

In conclusion, we pray that, inasmuch as the existing conditions and rules and 
drills show abundant records of rapid lowering of boats and sensible apparatus, and 
as the inspection service is vigilant and capable, and as the reports of the department 
show results of wonderful efficiency, that this new and drastic regulation, which 
would burden our merchant marine tremendously and leave it really, in our opinion, 
less efficient than it is now, be kept out of the statutes. 

Respectfully, E. E. Olcott, 

President and General Manager. 


78 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


New York, April 25, 1910. 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sirs: Referring to the hearing, which took place in your committee room on Friday, 
April 22, I believe it was understood that there was to be further testimony submitted 
by different people, some in favor and some opposed to H. R. 21836, and at that hearing 
I think I was asked how long our boats were and my answer was, About 30 feet. I wish 
to correct this, and say that our largest boats are 26^ feet long. I further stated that 
the Priscilla when she was in collision with the Powhatan went down by the head 9 
feet. I wish to add to that that her stern came up out of water about 7 feet; she had 
been drawing before the collision about 13 feet of water. This would seem to change 
her angle on the water a total of 16 feet, an angle of 1 foot in 27 feet—that is to say, a boat 
being 26^ feet long would go down by the head 1 foot if she sat level on the deck before 
the collision occurred. 

I this day launched a lifeboat of the steamer Priscilla while lying at the dock and 
put 27 men into her. This boat contains 275 cubic feet, and her capacity is there¬ 
fore 27^ persons, allowing 10 cubic feet to each one, which is the rule of the supervis¬ 
ing inspectors. When she was loaded, she had 1 foot freeboard amidships, and there¬ 
fore would have a little more at each end. These were average men, picked up from 
the crew of the steamer. 

The above illustration shows that the lifeboat’s bow would have been very close to 
the water’s edge when lowered under the conditions mentioned, and if there was any 
little chop or sea running she probably would take water in over the bow before she 
settled to her natural position. 

If there is another hearing to be given, and I believe there ought to be, I shall 
appear there with illustrations and blueprints to show how it will affect the steamers 
of this company. I inspected the Martin machine in Washington after leaving your 
committee room and found that it took up a space of 10 by 20 feet with a boat of only 
138 cubic feet capacity and, I think, about 19 feet long. This is about 4 feet more in 
width than some of our boats occupy, and it would change the construction of our 
ships materially, making it a very expensive proposition. The agent, Mr. Wells, 
however, stated they had another machine which was an improvement and did not 
take up as much room as the one he had on exhibition. This last-mentioned machine 
I did not see; but if a new machine is capable of being improved in such a short time 
would it not be better to make a bill, if we could do nothing better, that will affect 
new construction only, for if there is an incentive to inventors many improved 
machines might be gotten up inside of a few years. 

I would further say regarding the Martin machine that it is adapted to be used 
with a single fall. Such a fall has to be geared up and run very slow in order to hoist 
the boat. We now have a boat drill once each week and we keep the entire crew 
on duty on that day until after the drill is over. Some of our steamers carry a crew 
of 240 men and these men would have to stay there much longer if we used the Martin 
machine, because it would take much longer to hoist the boat up than with any other 
appliance. The claim is made that two men can hoist a boat out of water. This is 
true; but these two men could not hoist the boat up to the boat deck, a matter of 
38 feet, in less than fifteen minutes. 

Take a boat in actual service with any sea running, she would smash against the 
side before she could be hoisted to a safe position. 

The Welin machine does not meet the requirements of the bill, and if it could be 
adapted by additional parts it would still cause a great expense to install, as it takes 
up more room, possibly 2 feet, than is now set aside for lifeboats, both forward and 
aft. We would also have to change our construction in order to meet it. 

You saw a demonstration of what the Welin boat could do at the last hearing. It 
was very elaborate and showed what could be done when the ship was rolling, but 
did not show what would happen if the ship was in a sea and pitching head first. If 
you stop to think that as soon as she is lifted from her chocks she would swing forward 
and aft and by doing so would strike the machine at both ends, probably displacing it 
so much as to render it useless. 

Yesterday, April 24, I had a crew of six men launch a lifeboat from the Priscilla 
which is rigged with a gear that has been in use for years. The men were sent to their 
quarters, and when the signal was given they had to go a distance of 123 feet, down 
two steps at one place and two at another, cleared away the boat and launched her, 
which they did in one minute and thirty seconds. The distance from the bottom 
of the boat as she sat in her chocks to the water is 38 feet and the height of the davits 
above this deck is 13 feet 4 inches. I do not believe you can beat that record with 
the Welin or Martin machines, and this is only practice. What we can do in bad 
weather is another question, as you have to choose your time in order to launch a 
boat with a degree of safety. 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


79 


I have taken the liberty to send a copy of this letter to each member of the com¬ 
mittee so that they may have an opportunity to look it over at their leisure, and if 
there is any merit in this communication, kindly give it due weight in your consid¬ 
erations. 

Yours, truly, 

H. 0. Nickerson, 

Acting General Manager the New England Navigation Company. 


April 27, 1910. 

Hon. William S. Greene, 

Chairman Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee , 

Washington , D. C. 

Sir: I see by the papers that there is a proposition before your committee to com¬ 
pel the use of boat-handling devices on steamboats other than the swinging davits 
now in general use. 

May I suggest that this is a matter not to be hastily decided upon. Every steam¬ 
boat man, every designer, has given this subject the most careful, I will say in my 
case, the almost prayerful consideration. Innumerable plans have been tried, and 
patent offices are full of schemes and designs for boat handling, yet the only method 
that has survived to any extent is the oldest, probably the original one, of swinging 
davits. 

The sine qua non is that the method should be simple and free from any possibility 
of getting out of order. There should not be any machinery which requires a spe¬ 
cially trained crew to operate. In fact, the method of operation should be so obvious 
that the man of average intelligence could handle it wdthout previous instruction. 

In case of disaster, such as fire on one of our river steamboats, it is extremely prob¬ 
able that a large part of the crew would be compelled to fight the fire and that the 
officers would have to call upon some of the cooler-headed passengers to help handle 
the boats. Ask yourself, if you were called upon in such an emergency, whether you 
would prefer to use davits, such as are now practically universal, or to puzzle out some 
mechanical contraption which you had never seen or heard of before. In a lesser 
degree the hesitancy about using an unusual contrivance applies to the average crew 
of a river boat, which is quite different to that of an ocean-going ship. 

On a seagoing ship the case is not quite the same. The crew is much larger in 
comparison with the number of passengers carried, the same crew is apt to be together 
for a much longer time on the same ship, and there is more time for drilling; also the 
chances are that there would be much more time for coping with trouble, and as at 
sea it would be necessary to lower the boats with the people in them, some good 
mechanical boat-lowering device would be a great advantage. 

In a river disaster the boats would not be lowered with passengers in them; they 
could only act as auxiliaries to the life-preservers and life rafts and help to keep the 
people afloat till assistance came, which would probably be only a question of min¬ 
utes, whereas in a sea disaster the boats have a quite different function to perform. 
In that case they must actually carry inside them all the people they save, this for 
hours or perhaps days, and on rough water. 

It is my opinion that the vessel’s own boats would play but a small part in case of 
disaster to a river boat or a ferryboat. The prime necessity is to keep each individual 
afloat for the comparatively short time before help could arrive, and this is best 
accomplished by means of individual life-preservers and by life floats small enough 
and light enough to be easily thrown overboard and to which a number of people 
could cling in the water. 

Yours, respectfully, J. W. Millard. 


New York, April 29 , 1910. 

Hon. William S. Greene, 

Chairman Committee Merchant Marine and Fisheries , 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: We are in receipt of a copy of bill H. R. 21836, relating to apparatus for 
lifeboats on all vessels coming under the supervision of the United States local 
inspectors. 

This company operates directly and indirectly 62 towing steamers, varying in 
length from 50 feet to 130 feet, the majority being between 50 and 75 feet in length, 
carrying no passengers, and having crews of from 4 to 12 men. 




80 


PROTECTION OF LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND SEAMEN. 


The present method of handling lifeboats is by means of davits, which have their 
support on the lower or main deck. We operate solely on the Hudson River and in 
New York Harbor, and are at no time a distance of more than 2 miles from shore, 
and in most cases are less than one-half mile from shore. 

We present our objections to an application of this bill to towing steamers for the 
following reasons: 

First. That any change in the present system is unnecessary. In a history of 
sixty years this company has not on record a single case of loss of life due to the 
inability to properly launch lifeboats. 

Second. The small deck houses on tugboats are not of sufficient strength to carry 
any apparatus from which to suspend a lifeboat, as called for in the proposed law. 

Third. There is not sufficient space between the skylight over the engine room and 
the edge of the main house to permit of the placing of any known apparatus, which 
has been shown, capable of affording compliance with the provisions of the law. 

Fourth. In the tugboat service, the crew has no occasion to use the upper deck, 
and all loading of lifeboats must occur from the main deck, which is less than 3 feet 
above the water, and therefore any apparatus designed to handle lifeboats fully 
loaded from the upper deck is not necessary, as far as tugboats are concerned. 

Fifth. The apparatus is designed to be placed flush with the edge of the deck. In 
tugboats the upper deck is 4 feet or more inside of the outside line of the steamer’s 
hull, and therefore a greater length of arm and strength of apparatus would be required 
to lower the boat clear. 

Sixth. In the majority of boats it is not possible to install the apparatus without a 
complete reconstruction of the deck houses. 

In view of these facts we respectfully submit that the proposed law is an unneces¬ 
sary hardship and an actual injury to boats of the class operated by this company. 

Yours, truly, 


Cornell Steamboat Company, 
Fredk. Coykendall, 

General Manager. 





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































0 














































































































































































































































































































































































































* 









































































































































































































































































